“Confirmed Judges, Confirmed Fears” is a blog series documenting the harmful impact of President Trump’s judges on Americans’ rights and liberties. It includes judges nominated in both his first and second terms.
What’s at stake in this case
Immigrant Roberto Rios-Rocha tried to get immigration authorities to cancel his deportation because of hardship.
What happened in this case?
Roberto Rios-Rocha, a native of Mexico, lived in the US with his wife and son. He did not have authorization to remain in the US, and immigration authorities sought to deport him.
As part of the proceedings before an Immigration Judge, Rios-Rocha supported his claims of the hardship that his deportation would cause to his wife and son with an expert’s affidavit. For example, the affidavit recounted the expert’s opinion that the “stress” to his wife and son would “aggravate his son’s asthma,” which would then “adversely affect his son’s long-term pulmonary health, academic success, and professional achievement,” and would also harm “his wife’s ability to keep a job.”
The IJ, however, excluded the affidavit from evidence and denied Rio-Rocha’s application. That finding was affirmed by the Board of Immigration Appeals. Rios-Rocha then appealed the case to the Ninth Circuit, where it was considered by a panel including Trump judges Kenneth Lee and Briget Bade.
What did Trump judges Lee and Bade decide?
Trump judges Lee and Bade issued an unsigned 2-1 decision that denied Rios-Rocha’s petition and affirmed the deportation ruling against him. The majority maintained that the IJ had the authority to exclude the expert affidavit and approve deportation and committed no errors in doing so. The November 2025 Ninth Circuit ruling is at Rios-Rocha v Bondi.
What did Judge Graber say in dissent?
Judge Susan Graber, who was nominated by President Clinton, strongly dissented. She explained that it was error to exclude the affidavit, since the record did not support the government’s claim that it contained “factual errors.” Previous decisions,she went on, establish that immigration authorities commit “legal error” when they “do not consider all the evidence before it,” which can include expert affidavits. Precedent also establishes, she wrote, that an agency is required to consider all hardship factors “in the aggregate,” and the authorities could not do that when the expert affidavit was excluded. She concluded that Rios-Rocha should have received a new hearing.
Why is the result harmful?
The ruling by Trump judges Lee and Bade will obviously harm Rios-Rocha and his family in their effort to prevent his deportation. It also sets a dangerous precedent in other deportation cases, particularly in the Ninth Circuit, which includes California, Alaska, Arizona, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington. In addition, the decision illustrates the importance of our federal courts to health, welfare and justice and the significance of having fair-minded judges on the federal bench.