{"id":"LAW-079","kind":"law","level":"law","jurisdiction":"","state":"","metro":"","industry":"","agency":"","eco":"","issuer":"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit","authority":"Lemus-Escobar v. Bondi, No. 18-73423 (9th Cir. Nov. 10, 2025) (order and amended opinion), reported at 158 F.4th 944 (per Tri-State at 7-8)","instrument":"Lemus-Escobar v. Bondi, No. 18-73423 (9th Cir. Nov. 10, 2025) (order and amended opinion), reported at 158 F.4th 944 (per Tri-State at 7-8)","title":"Lemus-Escobar v. Bondi, No. 18-73423 (9th Cir. Nov. 10, 2025) (order and amended opinion), reported at 158 F.4th 944 (per Tri-State at 7-8)","dateIssued":"2025-11-10","effective":"","end":"","startDate":"2025-11-10","endDate":"","quarters":[],"types":[],"addressees":[],"clause":"The weight of such a judgment in a particular case will depend upon the thoroughness evident in its consideration, the validity of its reasoning, its consistency with earlier and later pronouncements, and all those factors which give it power to persuade, if lacking power to control. (Skidmore at 140)... We therefore apply Skidmore deference here. The weight given to an agency\u0027s interpretation under Skidmore depends on the thoroughness, consistency, and persuasiveness of the decision itself. (Lemus-Escobar, amended slip op. at 28)","enforcement":"","functions":[],"notes":"The consistency factor is the sting: the Service\u0027s Q\u0026A-11 \u0027facts and circumstances\u0027 rule, the United States\u0027 \u0027safe harbor\u0027 representations in two federal courts, and the Service\u0027s application of the 10 percent figure as a floor in examinations (Opening Br. at 11-13, 43-46) are three inconsistent pronouncements.","sourceUrl":"https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2025/11/10/18-73423.pdf","snapshot":"","fileExists":true,"fileBytes":296439,"grade":"primary","character":"case","description":"","collection":"LEG-A","url":"/library/LAW-079","exhibitUrl":"/exhibit/LAW-079","citation":"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Lemus-Escobar v. Bondi, No. 18-73423 (9th Cir. Nov. 10, 2025) (order and amended opinion), reported at 158 F.4th 944 (per Tri-State at 7-8) (Ex. LAW-079)","stateName":"","related":["LAW-078"]}