Roopali H. Desai
How Judge Desai rules, drawn from 34 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Desai
Roopali H. Desai is a judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Appointed by President Joseph R. Biden, Judge Desai received a commission on October 3, 2022.
Judge Desai's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge Desai's own (checked October 11, 2026), so the court's local rules and general orders are the place to look (court page ↗).
Standing orders for every case in this court
Orders the court applies to all of its cases, whichever judge has them, as published on the court's website (checked October 11, 2026).
How Judge Desai decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In the reissued Nasri opinion, Desai required actual or constructive control of foreign property before a court could exercise in rem forfeiture jurisdiction consistently with due process.
“For the foregoing reasons, we hold that the district court’s exercise of in rem jurisdiction without finding that it has control or constructive control over the defendant property violates the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.”
In her Nasri concurrence, Desai reasoned that constructive control based on a foreign government’s cooperation and assurances makes relief redressable and the resulting judgment more than advisory.
“A requirement that the district court have control or constructive control over the assets satisfies Article III’s justiciability requirements.”
In her Gonzalez-Argueta concurrence, Desai proposed asking whether retaliation for a former police officer’s work was related to the petitioner’s protected status rather than treating personal retribution as the end of the nexus inquiry.
“Specifically, we should add an additional step to the nexus analysis to consider whether a persecutor’s ‘retribution’ is related to the petitioner’s status as a former police officer.”
Procedural preferences
In immigration review, Desai treated the agency’s failure to consider a payment receipt on a dispositive issue as legal error requiring a limited remand.
“BIA legally erred by failing to consider Perez-Garcia’s proof of payment of his voluntary departure bond.”
In a facial challenge to Arizona’s birth-certificate amendment requirements, Desai treated the availability of a separate court-order route as defeating the claimed due process burden in all applications, then reversed summary judgment and vacated the injunction.
“Given the availability of the court order process, plaintiffs’ alleged fundamental rights are not burdened in all applications of the statute, and the law thus does not violate the Due Process Clause.”
Conflicting sworn accounts about whether a defendant instructed counsel to appeal required a credibility hearing before a postconviction motion could be denied.
“Faced with conflicting sworn statements from Anderson and his trial counsel on a dispositive issue, the district court should have held a hearing to assess each person’s credibility, and it abused its discretion by failing to do so before denying Anderson’s motion.”
In Montejo-Gonzalez v. Bondi, Desai held for the en banc court that the agency could not reject traffic delays categorically. She remanded for a review of the petitioners' full circumstances without deciding whether they qualified for reopening.
“The IJ and BIA abused their discretion by misreading our prior case law and applying a bright line rule that ‘traffic’ cannot constitute exceptional circumstances.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Because the ADA's fee provision does not independently confer jurisdiction and defendants did not move for fees under any other rule or statute, the district court lacked the authority to award fees under the ADA once it dismissed Mr. Fernandez's claim for lack of standing. ... REVERSED and VACATED.”
“We affirm the district court's summary judgment granting Officer High qualified immunity because Ms. Martinez's constitutional right was not clearly established in 2013. ... AFFIRMED.”
“Because we find that Appellants' opening brief represents a material failure to comply with our rules, we strike the brief in its entirety pursuant to Ninth Circuit Rule 28-1 and dismiss this appeal. ... DISMISSED.”
“AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED.”
“We now remand for the district court to enter summary judgment on behalf of Plaintiffs, vacating the agency’s decision. REVERSED and REMANDED with INSTRUCTIONS.”
“We reverse the district court's dismissal of the complaint on statute of limitations grounds and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. REVERSED and REMANDED.”
“AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED. Each party shall bear its own costs on appeal.”
“We GRANT the petition for review and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
“In sum, we affirm the district court’s holding that Berry is not entitled to fees under § 928(a).”
Judge Desai authored the 2024 panel opinion vacating the sentence. The Ninth Circuit later vacated that panel disposition on rehearing en banc and affirmed the district court on January 13, 2026.
“AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED. Each party shall bear its own costs on appeal.”
“REVERSED AND REMANDED.”
Draft for Judge Desai with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Desai, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Desai's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace