Leppind

dissenting:

At oral argument, the government agreed to mediation only if the panel determined that Bona v. Gonzales, 425 F.3d 663 (9th Cir.2005), impacted this ease. The panel now submits this case to mediation without explaining why Bona is relevant. Because in my view the change in the law affected by Bona has no impact on Leppind’s case, I dissent from the order referring this case to mediation.

I

In Bona , an arriving alien in a removal proceeding attempted to file a new application for adjustment of status with the immigration judge (IJ). 1 (The application filed by the petitioner before she was put in removal proceedings had been denied.) The IJ held that 8 C.F.R. § 245.1 (c)(8) precluded him from considering the petitioner’s application. That regulation stated, in pertinent part:

8 C.F.R. § 245.1 (2005). The petitioner challenged this regulation as conflicting with 8 U.S.C. § 1255 (a), which provides *864 that “[t]he status of an alien who was inspected and admitted or paroled into the United States ... may be adjusted by the Attorney General, in his discretion and under such regulations as he may prescribe .... ” We agreed. Noting that 8 C.F.R. § 245.1 precluded the…

*863 ORDER

This case is referred to the Ninth Circuit Mediation Office to explore a possible resolution through mediation. Because a majority of the panel has concluded that an intervening case, Bona v. Gonzales, 425 F.3d 663 (9th Cir.2005), is relevant to the determination of the petition, but would remand for the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) to have the opportunity, which it previously did not, to apply the principles of Bona to the facts presented in this petition in the first instance, the majority accedes to the government’s preference for mediation over remand. 1 Given the parties’ agreement to alternative dispute resolution, “the strong judicial policy that favors settlements of disputes,” Guerrero v. RJM Acquisitions LLC, 499 F.3d 926, 939 (9th Cir.2007) (internal quotation marks omitted), and that the Ninth Circuit Mediation Office has proven remarkably effective in resolving, to the satisfaction of both petitioners and the government, issues arising in immigration petitions, this mediation referral order meaningfully serves the goals of judicial economy and fairness. To fully decide the question of Bona’s applicability, as our dissenting colleague would desire,…

FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

OLIVER LEPPIND, 

Petitioner, No. 04-75903 v.  Agency No.

A79-406-882

MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, ORDER Respondent.  Filed June 20, 2008

Before: Kim McLane Wardlaw and Sandra S. Ikuta, Circuit Judges, and Jeremy D. Fogel,* District Judge.

Order; Dissent by Judge Ikuta

COUNSEL

David Landry, San Diego, California, for the petitioner.

Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division, Leslie McKay, Senior Litigation Counsel, Terri J. Scadron, Assistant Director, Arthur L. Rabin, Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for the respondent.

*The Honorable Jeremy D. Fogel, United States District Judge for the Northern District of California, sitting by designation.

7111 7112 LEPPIND v. MUKASEY

ORDER

This case is referred to the Ninth Circuit Mediation Office to explore a possible resolution through mediation. Because a majority of the panel has concluded that an intervening case, Bona v. Gonzales, 425 F.3d 663…