Justia U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Four noncitizens from India, who have been lawfully residing in the U.S. for over ten years, filed for permanent residency more than four years ago. Their applications have not been adjudicated, prompting them to sue the Director of USCIS and the Secretary of DOS under the APA for unreasonable delay and unlawful withholding of agency action. They argue that USCIS's policy of not adjudicating applications until a visa is "immediately available" violates 8 U.S.C. § 1255(a).The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts dismissed the claims under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and 12(b)(1). The court found that the plaintiffs' interpretation of § 1255(a) was incorrect and that the agencies' policies were within their discretion. The court ruled that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim for unreasonable delay and unlawful withholding under the APA.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the District Court's dismissal. The appellate court held that § 1255(a) sets eligibility criteria for applying for adjustment of status but does not mandate the timing of adjudication. The court found that the 1976 amendment to § 1255(a) did not preclude USCIS from considering visa availability at the time of approval. The court also rejected the plaintiffs' structural arguments based on other statutory provisions, finding no conflict with USCIS's policy. The court concluded that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim under the APA against both USCIS and DOS. View "Patel v. Jaddou" on Justia Law

The case involves Lucas Sirois and Alisa Sirois, who were indicted for conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute marijuana under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). They sought to enjoin the Department of Justice (DOJ) from prosecuting them, arguing that their conduct was in substantial compliance with the Maine Medical Use of Cannabis Act, which allows for the use, distribution, possession, and cultivation of medical marijuana under state law. The defendants claimed that the DOJ's prosecution violated the Rohrabacher-Farr Amendment, which prohibits the DOJ from using funds to prevent states from implementing their medical marijuana laws.The United States District Court for the District of Maine denied the defendants' request for injunctive relief. The court held a hearing where the government presented evidence that the defendants' operations, particularly a grow operation known as the "Shoe Shop," violated Maine's medical marijuana laws by operating as a collective and engaging in black-market sales. The court found that the government had met its burden of production, showing a substantial evidentiary basis for the prosecution. However, the defendants failed to meet their burden of persuasion to demonstrate that the prosecution lacked a substantial evidentiary basis or was arbitrary or irrational.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the District Court's decision. The appellate court held that the defendants did not show by a preponderance of the evidence that they were in substantial compliance with Maine's medical marijuana laws. The court noted significant evidence that the Shoe Shop operated as a collective and that Lucas Sirois engaged in black-market sales. The court concluded that the defendants failed to demonstrate that the DOJ's prosecution would prevent Maine from giving practical effect to its medical marijuana laws, as required under the Rohrabacher-Farr Amendment. Therefore, the denial of the motion to enjoin the prosecution was affirmed. View "United States v. Sirois" on Justia Law

In this case, the defendants, Aurea Vázquez Rijos, Marcia Vázquez Rijos, and José Ferrer Sosa, were involved in a murder-for-hire plot that resulted in the death of Adam Anhang Uster in Old San Juan, Puerto Rico, in 2005. Adam, a Canadian entrepreneur, was attacked and killed by a man hired by the defendants while walking with his wife, Aurea. The motive was financial gain from a prenuptial agreement that favored Aurea significantly more in the event of Adam's death than in the case of a divorce.The United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico tried the defendants. A federal jury convicted Aurea of murder for hire and all three defendants of conspiring to commit murder for hire. Each received a life sentence. The defendants appealed, raising numerous issues related to the trial, sentencing, and post-trial phases.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. The court addressed various claims, including the sufficiency of the evidence, the denial of severance, the admission of certain evidence, judicial bias, and the handling of post-trial motions related to the mental health of a key witness, Alex Pabón Colon. The court found that the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to support the convictions and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in its rulings on severance, evidentiary matters, and judicial conduct.The court also examined the defendants' claims regarding the mental health of Pabón, who testified that he was hired by the defendants to kill Adam. The court concluded that the district court did not err in its handling of Pabón's competency and the related post-trial motions. The court affirmed the district court's decisions across the board, upholding the convictions and sentences of the defendants. View "United States v. Vazquez-Rijos" on Justia Law

Salvadoran nationals Julio Alvarado-Reyes, his wife Glenda Garmendia-Ardona, and their minor son J.A.G. fled to the United States after being threatened by the MS-13 gang. Alvarado-Reyes was repeatedly stopped by gang members who demanded he use his truck for their activities, threatening his family when he refused. Garmendia-Ardona also received threatening calls. Fearing for their lives, they did not report to the police and eventually left El Salvador in August 2021. The Department of Homeland Security initiated removal proceedings against them in November 2021.An Immigration Judge (IJ) denied their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The IJ found that the harm Alvarado-Reyes experienced did not amount to persecution and that his proposed particular social group (PSG) of "Salvadoran men who resist gang recruitment" was not legally cognizable. The IJ also determined that the harm was not on account of his membership in the "Reyes family" or "Salvadoran men" PSGs. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed the IJ's decision without opinion, making the IJ's decision the final agency decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. The court upheld the IJ's findings, agreeing that the proposed PSG of "Salvadoran men who resist gang recruitment" lacked particularity and that there was no sufficient nexus between the harm and Alvarado-Reyes' membership in the "Reyes family" or "Salvadoran men" PSGs. The court also found that the BIA's affirmance without opinion was a valid exercise of discretion. Consequently, the petition for review was denied. View "Alvarado-Reyes v. Garland" on Justia Law

A priest residing in the rectory of St. Mary's Catholic Church in Providence, Rhode Island, was found to have over 12,000 images and 1,300 videos of child pornography on his laptop and external hard drive. The government obtained a search warrant for the rectory, which led to the seizure of these devices. Subsequently, a federal grand jury charged the priest with receipt and possession of child pornography. The priest entered a conditional guilty plea, reserving the right to appeal the district court's denial of his motion to suppress the evidence obtained from the search.The United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island denied the motion to suppress, finding that the rectory was best characterized as a single-family residence, thus validating the warrant's description. The court also held that even if the warrant lacked sufficient particularity, the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule would apply, as the officers reasonably relied on the warrant.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court concluded that the warrant was sufficiently particular regarding the premises and the items to be seized. Even if it were not, the good-faith exception applied because the officers acted reasonably based on the detailed affidavit provided by Detective Evans. The court also noted that the appellant waived his right to appeal the denial of his motion for reconsideration by not reserving it in his conditional plea agreement. Thus, the judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "US v. Jackson" on Justia Law

Brian Watson was convicted in 2017 by a jury for the felony sale of a controlled drug (fentanyl) resulting in death. The prosecution's evidence included testimony from Dr. Daniel Isenschmid, a forensic toxicologist, who discussed toxicology tests conducted by his colleagues, revealing fentanyl and its metabolites in the victim's blood. Watson appealed, arguing that the trial court erred by allowing Dr. Isenschmid to testify about tests he did not perform. The New Hampshire Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, finding that Dr. Isenschmid's involvement in the case was sufficient to satisfy the Confrontation Clause.Watson then filed a habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in the United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire, claiming that his Confrontation Clause rights were violated by Dr. Isenschmid's testimony. The warden moved for summary judgment, which the district court granted, concluding that the state court's decision was neither contrary to nor an unreasonable application of Supreme Court precedent.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case and upheld the district court's decision. The court found that Watson did not provide clear and convincing evidence to show that the state court's factual findings were incorrect. The court also determined that the state court's decision was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law. The First Circuit noted that Dr. Isenschmid had personally reviewed all relevant documentation, data, and test results, and had issued and signed the toxicology report, making his testimony permissible under the Confrontation Clause. The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the warden. View "Watson v. Edmark" on Justia Law

In 2020, a federal grand jury indicted David DeQuattro, an architect, and Cedric Cromwell, Chairman of the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribal Council and President of the Mashpee Wampanoag Gaming Authority. They were charged with various federal offenses, including bribery and extortion, related to Cromwell allegedly soliciting and DeQuattro allegedly providing checks and other items of value to protect a contract between DeQuattro's firm and the Gaming Authority for building a casino on tribal land.The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts held a jury trial where DeQuattro was convicted of one count of federal-program bribery, and Cromwell was convicted of two counts of federal-program bribery and multiple counts of Hobbs Act extortion. However, the District Court later entered a judgment of acquittal on the Hobbs Act-related counts, determining that the Hobbs Act did not clearly abrogate tribal immunity. Both defendants appealed their § 666 convictions, and the government cross-appealed the judgment of acquittal on the Hobbs Act counts.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. The court reversed both the § 666 convictions and the judgment of acquittal. The court found that the evidence did not suffice to show that the RGB contract was "business" of the Tribe, as required under § 666, because the Gaming Authority, which entered the contract, was a separate legal entity from the Tribe and received almost all its funding from a third party. The court also reversed the District Court's judgment of acquittal on the Hobbs Act convictions, holding that tribal officials do not enjoy immunity from federal criminal prosecution and that the evidence was sufficient to show Cromwell's intent to engage in a quid pro quo arrangement. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "United States v. Dequattro" on Justia Law

Michael Hermalyn, a former employee of DraftKings, left his position to join a rival company, Fanatics, based in California. DraftKings, headquartered in Massachusetts, claimed that Hermalyn's new role violated a noncompete agreement he had signed, which included a Massachusetts choice-of-law provision and a one-year noncompete clause. DraftKings sued Hermalyn in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts for breach of the noncompete agreement.The district court sided with DraftKings, applying Massachusetts law to determine the enforceability of the noncompete agreement. The court found the noncompete enforceable and issued a preliminary injunction preventing Hermalyn from competing against DraftKings in the United States for one year. Hermalyn appealed, arguing that California law, which generally bans noncompetes, should apply instead of Massachusetts law. Alternatively, he argued that if Massachusetts law applied, the injunction should exclude California.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. The court examined whether the district judge abused her discretion in granting the preliminary injunction and whether she made any legal errors in applying Massachusetts law. The appellate court found that Massachusetts law was correctly applied, noting that Massachusetts generally respects choice-of-law provisions unless they violate a fundamental policy of another state with a materially greater interest. The court concluded that Hermalyn failed to demonstrate that California's interest in banning noncompetes was materially greater than Massachusetts's interest in enforcing them.The First Circuit also upheld the scope of the preliminary injunction, rejecting Hermalyn's argument to exclude California. The court reasoned that excluding California would undermine the effectiveness of the injunction, as Hermalyn's role involved interacting with clients in states where online sports betting is legal. Consequently, the appellate court affirmed the district court's decision and awarded costs to DraftKings. View "DraftKings Inc. v. Hermalyn" on Justia Law

Two pilots, Luis F. Bonnet and Carlos R. Benítez Maldonado, were employed by Benítez Aviation, Inc. (BAI), which managed a Cessna aircraft. In April and May 2019, Bonnet and Benítez piloted several flights without the required certificates for commercial operations. The FAA suspended their Airline Transport Pilot (ATP) certificates for 270 days, alleging they operated the flights as air carriers or commercial operators without proper certification. The pilots received their regular salaries but no additional compensation for these flights.The FAA issued a Notice of Proposed Certificate Action, which the pilots appealed to the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB). An administrative law judge (ALJ) upheld the FAA's suspension order, finding that the flights were conducted for compensation and hire, thus requiring compliance with Part 135 regulations. The NTSB affirmed the ALJ's decision, concluding that the flights were subject to air carrier or commercial operator requirements and that the pilots violated multiple FAA regulations. The NTSB also found that the ALJ did not exhibit bias and that the 270-day suspension was appropriate.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that substantial evidence supported the NTSB's findings that the flights were operated as common carriers for compensation, thus requiring Part 135 certification. The court also found that the pilots were responsible for ensuring compliance with FAA regulations, regardless of BAI's role in booking the flights. The court upheld the NTSB's decision, including the 270-day suspension of the pilots' certificates, finding it justified based on the pilots' regulatory violations and the potential risk to passenger safety. The petition for review was denied. View "Bonnet v. Whitaker" on Justia Law

Joyce Toth purchased a Food Sensitivity Test from Target's website and followed the instructions to create an account on Everlywell's website, where she clicked a checkbox indicating that she had read and accepted the terms and conditions. These terms included an arbitration agreement. Toth later received test results that she found confusing and inaccurate, leading her to file a putative class action against Everlywell, alleging deceptive marketing and misuse of personal medical information.The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted Everlywell's motion to compel arbitration, holding that Toth had formed a valid "clickwrap" contract by clicking the checkbox. The court found that Everlywell provided reasonable notice of the terms and secured Toth's assent. It also rejected Toth's arguments that the contract lacked consideration, that Everlywell did not provide reasonable notice, and that the contract was illusory or unconscionable.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court held that Toth had received reasonable notice of the terms and had meaningfully assented to them by clicking the checkbox. The court also found that the arbitration agreement was valid and enforceable, noting that the User Agreement incorporated the AAA rules, which delegate issues of arbitrability to the arbitrator. Toth's arguments regarding the unilateral-modification clauses and the alleged unconscionability of the arbitration agreement were deemed insufficient to invalidate the delegation provision. Thus, the court concluded that the arbitration agreement was enforceable, and Toth's claims must be resolved through arbitration. View "Toth v. Everly Well, Inc." on Justia Law