Salvador Mendoza, Jr.
How Judge Mendoza rules, drawn from 32 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Mendoza
Salvador Mendoza, Jr. is a judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Appointed by President Joseph R. Biden, Judge Mendoza received a commission on September 15, 2022. Judge Mendoza previously served on the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington, commissioned there on June 19, 2014.
Judge Mendoza's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge Mendoza'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 Mendoza decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
Procedural preferences
Treats binding circuit precedent as controlling even when the trial court disagrees with it, unless a competent court has overruled it.
“Published decisions from this court are binding law that must be followed within the circuit ‘unless and until overruled by a body competent to do so.’”
In A.M. v. Blanche, Mendoza ordered a new immigration hearing after the judge identified missing corroboration only when denying relief, without first giving the applicant a chance to supply it.
“They must tell the applicant what additional corroboration is needed and give the applicant a chance to either provide it or explain why it cannot be obtained.”
Cautions
Declines to review a fact-bound summary-judgment issue after trial when the appellant did not preserve the specific challenge through a Rule 50 motion.
“When a party fails to preserve its objections to fact-bound issues through Rule 50 motions following a jury trial, we are typically not free to address those challenges on appeal.”
In Wiley, Mendoza concurred in the judgment because the record did not show that jurors perceived the defendant’s ankle monitor. He would have resolved the appeal on that factual ground before addressing a broader due-process question.
“The record, however, does not reflect that any juror perceived Wiley’s ankle monitor.”
In his A.M. v. Blanche concurrence, Mendoza asked the agency to consider the petitioner’s evidence about risks to LGBTQ+ people in Russia when it reconsidered his applications on remand.
“A.M. presented considerable evidence of widespread, state-endorsed homophobia. The agency should take this into consideration when evaluating A.M.’s applications on remand.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; REMANDED.”
“Despite the district court’s error in sending the RLUIPA substantial-burden question to the jury, we conclude that ‘the jury’s verdict is consistent with the required legal outcome,’ Ohio House, 122 F.4th at 1116, and therefore AFFIRM the judgment.”
“the panel vacated the sentence imposed at resentencing and remanded for resentencing.”
“So we conclude that South Coast has authority to enforce ERISA's protections in federal court, reverse, and remand.”
“AFFIRMED.”
“the panel held that the district court erred in refusing to enforce the delegation provision, and reversed the district court's denial of Coinbase's motion to compel arbitration.”
“Granting Jose Ernesto Aleman-Belloso's petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' decision upholding the denial of asylum and related relief, and remanding, the panel held that the Board erred in concluding that Aleman failed to establish a nexus between any persecution and his political opinion.”
“an amended opinion granting in part petitioner Claude Stephen Bent's petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' denial of his motion to reopen removal proceedings, and remanding for the BIA to adjudicate petitioner's motion to reopen under the correct legal standards.”
“We therefore REVERSE the district court’s grant of a permanent injunction and vacate the injunction.”
“Therefore, the district court’s order dismissing Gonzalez’s petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is REVERSED and REMANDED with instructions to grant the petition in part, direct the Government to recalculate Gonzalez’s earned time credits, and provide the recalculation to Gonzalez’s probation officer.”
“For the foregoing reasons, we REVERSE the district court’s order dismissing Bowen’s suit for lack of Article III standing, and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
“Accordingly, we AFFIRM in part and REVERSE in part the district court’s order dismissing the shareholders’ Second Amended Complaint. We REMAND to the district court for further proceedings in keeping with this opinion.”
Draft for Judge Mendoza with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Mendoza, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Mendoza's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace