Another piece of good news from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Morozova v. Blanche, No. 25-4067, is being considered for an upcoming oral argument calendar in Pasadena. The Ninth Circuit has advised counsel that the case is being considered for a 2027 Pasadena sitting and has requested that the parties identify any scheduling conflicts.

After personally arguing Fertikh v. Blanche before the Ninth Circuit in Pasadena on September 16, 2026, it appears that I may soon have another opportunity to return to the same courthouse and argue another immigration case before the Court.

This time, one of the central issues is an area of appellate litigation that I particularly enjoy: abuse of discretion.

Discretion Is Broad — But It Is Not Unlimited

Immigration law gives administrative agencies and immigration judges considerable discretion. But the word “discretion” does not mean that a decision is immune from judicial review.

An agency exercising discretion must still operate within the boundaries established by law. It must apply the proper legal standards, consider the circumstances that the governing law requires it to consider, and reach a decision through a legally permissible process.

That distinction is important in immigration litigation.

An appellate court generally does not simply substitute its preferred result for the decision of an immigration judge or the Board of Immigration Appeals. The question is instead whether the agency exercised the discretion entrusted to it within the limits established by statute, regulations, and controlling precedent.

That is where abuse-of-discretion review becomes particularly important.

From the Immigration Court to the Court of Appeals

Immigration cases can involve several layers of review. A case may begin before an immigration judge, proceed to the Board of Immigration Appeals, and ultimately reach a federal court of appeals through a petition for review.

At the federal appellate level, the nature of the litigation changes considerably.

The record has already been created. The issues have been briefed. The focus becomes whether the agency’s decision survives review under the applicable legal standards.

Oral argument provides counsel with an opportunity to address the judges’ concerns directly. The judges may focus on the record, precedent, procedural history, jurisdiction, preservation of issues, or the precise standard of review. Counsel must be prepared not simply to repeat the written briefs, but to answer the Court’s questions directly and explain why the governing law applies to the particular administrative record before it.

Back to Pasadena

On September 16, 2026, I appeared personally before the Ninth Circuit in Pasadena to argue Fertikh v. Blanche.

That case presented issues involving due process, notice, and abuse of discretion arising from immigration proceedings. Arguing before a federal appellate panel is very different from appearing in immigration court. The exchange is focused, precedent-driven, and heavily dependent on the existing record and the applicable standard of review.

Now, only a short time after the Fertikh argument, Morozova v. Blanche is moving toward a possible oral argument during an upcoming Pasadena sitting.

For an attorney who spends a substantial part of his practice litigating immigration matters, having another case move toward oral argument before the Ninth Circuit is particularly meaningful. Federal appellate litigation provides an opportunity to address not only what happened in an individual immigration proceeding, but whether the administrative decision complied with the legal standards governing the agency’s authority.

Abuse of Discretion Is a Thing

One lesson deserves repeating: abuse of discretion is a thing.

Government agencies have substantial authority in immigration matters. Immigration judges and the Board of Immigration Appeals make difficult discretionary decisions every day. Federal courts appropriately give many of those decisions significant deference.

But deference and unlimited authority are not the same thing.

When Congress and precedent permit judicial review, courts can examine whether the agency applied the correct legal framework and exercised its discretion within lawful boundaries. That principle is an important part of administrative law and an important safeguard within the immigration system.

The case remains pending. No final decision has been issued, and consideration for an oral argument calendar does not itself determine the outcome of the case.

Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Ernest Goodman
Law Offices of Ernest Goodman

This post discusses a publicly available court proceeding for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice.