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

In 1999 petitioner, a citizen of the Dominican Republic, entered the U.S. without inspection. He married a U.S. citizen in 2001 and obtained conditional resident status 8 U.S.C. 1186a(a)(1). The marriage ended in 2004. He applied for a hardship waiver of the requirement of submitting a joint petition to remove the condition. The IJ determined that the marriage had not been in good faith and ordered removal. The BIA affirmed. The First Circuit denied review. The IJ based the decision on contradictory accounts, by petitioner and his ex-spouse, about the details of the marriage; petitioner placed the marriage at issue and cannot complain that he did not have notice of the issue.

Petitioner, a citizen of Albania, entered the U.S. illegally, on a fraudulent Italian passport, in 2004. Arrested at the airport, he sought asylum. The IJ, BIA, and First Circuit rejected his petitions. While appeal was pending, he sought to reopen removal proceedings and argued that removal had been improperly initiated. On appeal from rejection of the petition, he argued that, because of his limited command of English, he did not understand the Visa Waiver Program form he signed, under which he waived the right to contest removal on any grounds other than asylum. The First Circuit denied review, noting petitioner's delay in asserting his claim and that he never attempted to assert any grounds other than asylum.

A few hours after a domestic disturbance, Austin was spotted trying to get into his former girlfriend's apartment and given disorderly conduct and criminal trespass warnings. He was later spotted, visibly agitated, in a park, in violation of an ordinance closing the park over night. A civil citation issued. In response to a call from a payphone, indicating that a woman had been killed at the girlfriend's address, different officers went to the area and stopped defendant who matched Austin's general description and was walking on the street. A pat-frisk revealed a gun. It later came to light that the call was a hoax and that defendant was not involved with Austin. Defendant was convicted as a felon in possession, 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1). The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the arrest was based on probable cause, following a valid "Terry" stop that was brief and appropriate to the circumstances.

Puerto Rico requires all motor vehicle owners to pay for compulsory, state-issued auto insurance when they purchase or renew their vehicle registrations, even if they have obtained equivalent private insurance, with limited exceptions P.R. Laws tit. 26, 8051. Privately-insured vehicle owners who pay twice for coverage are entitled to reimbursements of state payments. A lot of the money is not returned during the two-year period for refunds; no statute or regulation provides notice of how to obtain reimbursement and only some insurers provide their insureds with notice of how to obtain reimbursements. After the two-year period, the money is transferred into trust for five years before being transferred to the commonwealth treasury. Individuals entitled to reimbursement receive no notice. The district court entered summary judgment, rejecting challenges to the law. The First Circuit reversed in part, holding that the law violates the notice requirements of the Due Process Clause and directing entry of a declaratory judgment and injunctive relief to that effect. The court rejected substantive due process and takings claims and left claims under Puerto Rico trust law to the Puerto Rico courts.

Plaintiffs brought a pre-enforcement declaratory judgment challenge to an ordinance requiring that, when there is a change in the identity of a hospitality employer, that employer must retain its predecessor's employees, subject to some conditions, for a three-month period. The district court rejected the challenge. The First Circuit affirmed, first holding that a pre-enforcement suit is not appropriate for determining preemption under the National Labor Relations Act. Nothing would prevent a successor employer from raising pre-emption in an appeal from the NLRB successorship determination based on the involuntary continuation of employment under the ordinance or in a state court enforcement action. The court rejected an argument that, by providing employees with benefits for which they otherwise would have had to bargain, the ordinance impermissibly enhances employee and union bargaining power and an argument that the law impermissibly interferes with hiring decisions.

Defendant, a film company, released a documentary, "The Price of Sugar," in 2007 that depicts treatment of Haitian laborers at sugar plantations in the Dominican Republic. The film mentions plaintiffs, senior executives of family plantations, by name. In a suit for defamation, the court entered summary judgment for defendant and denied a motion to compel production of discovery materials. The First Circuit affirmed in part. The plaintiffs are limited public figures in the entire United States, who used their access to the press to launch a PR blitz, thereby risking public scrutiny. Their conduct was beyond a reasonable reply to negative publicity. The court remanded for consideration of actual malice, based on communications between defendant and a fact-checker, hired at the suggestion of defense counsel.

Convicted of armed robbery of a convenience store, assault and battery, and intimidation of a witness, petitioner was sentenced to five to six years. His habeas corpus petition was denied in the district court. The First Circuit affirmed. The state appeals court's determination that a rational juror could have found that petitioner possessed a weapon at the time of the robbery was not objectively unreasonable, based on his words, "I'll blow you away," while holding his hand in his jacket, suggestive of a gun. Petitioner's statement, to a victim, that he would come back and kill him if he saw him on the news, was sufficient to support conviction for witness intimidation. The court noted that petitioner had beaten the victim, taken the victim's bicycle, and demanded that the victim give him the security tapes.

The airline sued federal employees, including an FAA principal maintenance inspector, claiming that intentional and improper delays with respect to inspections and certifications substantially destroyed its business. The district court dismissed most claims, but did not dismiss "Bivens" claims of violation of procedural due process rights and of retaliation for protected First Amendment activity. The First Circuit reversed, holding that the allegations were not sufficient to support denial of qualified immunity.

Defendant was convicted of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute marijuana and of social security fraud. The district court did not impose a forfeiture order based on a finding of inability to pay. The First Circuit affirmed the conviction, but remanded for entry of a forfeiture order under 21 U.S.C. 853(a)(1). The court properly admitted testimony about statements by a co-conspirator and about jailhouse statements by another that were statements against penal interest. With respect to forfeiture the court erred in considering arguments never raised by defendant and in placing the burden on the government to prove ability to pay.

Defendant was sentenced to life in prison after conviction for his role in importing and distributing marijuana. The First Circuit affirmed. Defense counsel's cross examination of government witnesses opened the door to defendant's prior criminal history and that history was relevant to defendant's knowledge of the presence of contraband and intent to distribute it. Limiting instructions eliminated any potential prejudice. Hearsay testimony about jailhouse statements made by one of defendant's associates was admissible as a statement against penal interests with adequate corroboration and did not violate the confrontation clause. Any error in jury instructions did not affect the outcome.