Opinion ID: 4564885
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Rebuttable Presumption of Alienage

Text: The Government also argues that Gonzalez is atypical of noncitizen class members because evidence of foreign birth—“even with citizen-class members”—gives rise to a GONZALEZ V. USICE 37 rebuttable presumption of alienage on which an immigration officer may rely as part of a probable cause determination, which does not apply to “someone who is or who the government should have known is a citizen. 14 Setting aside that the challenge here concerns the legality of a policy that applies equally to all class members, the Government makes no suggestion that it raised this atypicality argument in the district court, and the class certification order suggests that the Government did not do so. See Roy, 2016 WL 5219468, at . Although we may consider an argument raised for the first time on appeal in “exceptional circumstances,” Club One Casino, Inc. v. Bernhardt, 959 F.3d 1142, 1153 (9th Cir. 2020), the Government does not argue that such circumstances apply nor do we see any. The Government conceded in the district court that “evidence of foreign birth and no match in a federal immigration database is not probable cause of removability.” A party remains bound by a concession in the district court notwithstanding a contrary position on appeal. See Reynoso v. Giurbino, 462 F.3d 1099, 1110 (9th Cir. 2006). Thus, we deem the argument waived.