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

Petitioner was born and raised in Ethiopia in an influential family in the Oromo ethnic community. His relatives were active in the Mecha Tulema Association, outlawed by the Ethiopian government in 2004, and were arrested for their activities. Petitioner obtained a false passport. A statement, signed after his arrest by ICE indicated that he did not fear persecution or torture if he returned to Ethiopia. In defense of removal, he applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief. An IJ and the BIA rejected his claims. The First Circuit vacated the order of removal and remanded for the BIA to address: whether, in light of the rebuttable presumption of credibility to which petitioner is entitled (8 U.S.C. 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii)), he had not met his burden of proving his eligibility for asylum or withholding of removal and, if the IJ found petitioner's testimony "otherwise credible," whether section 1158(b)(1)(B)(ii) required the IJ to provide petitioner with notice of the need for corroborating evidence and an opportunity to provide that evidence or explain why it was not reasonably available. View "Guta-Tolossa v. Holder" on Justia Law

Convicted as a felon in possession of a firearm, 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1), defendant appealed his conviction and sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C. 924(e). The First Circuit affirmed, upholding denial of a motion to suppress evidence seized incident to a Terry stop, including a firearm. Defendant's actions provided reasonable suspicion for the stop and the officers acted reasonably throughout.A prior conviction for assault and battery with a dangerous weapon qualified as a predicate offense under ACCA. View "United States v. Hart" on Justia Law

In 2002, petitioner a citizen of El Salvador, attempted to enter the U.S. without authorization and was placed in removal proceedings, where he initially denied that he was removable. He sought asylum, withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture, claiming that he would suffer persecution if returned to his homeland, based on his purported membership in a particular social group, defined as young Salvadoran men who have resisted gang recruitment and whose parents are unavailable to protect them, and for his alleged anti-gang, pro-establishment "political opinion," 8 U.S.C.1101(a)(42)(A). An Immigration Judge and the BIA rejected the arguments. The First Circuit denied an appeal, finding that petitioner failed to establish a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of his political opinion View "Mayorga-Vidal v. Holder" on Justia Law

Siblings have previously filed multiple lawsuits in the Puerto Rico Commonwealth courts, claiming that under Puerto Rico inheritance law they were the rightful owners of property, including a farm and sugar mill. Each action was resolved against them. They filed suit in federal court, alleging that defendants violated a "panoply of federal laws by defrauding them of their rightful inheritances." The district court dismissed on res judicata grounds. The First Circuit affirmed, rejecting a public policy argument. Plaintiffs did not establish fraud in previous litigation and the claims all derive from the same core of operative facts. View "Garcia-Monagas v. Garcia-Ramirez de Arellano" on Justia Law

Vicor manufacturers electronic equipment, including power converters. Ericsson designs, manufactures and sells electronic equipment, including radio base stations (RBSs) used to operate cellular telephone towers and networks. Ericsson purchased Vicor power converters for use in RBSs sold to wireless providers worldwide. The power converters began failing due to a manufacturing change in a component computer chip. Severe outages occurred in wireless networks. Ericsson sued Vicor and obtained a settlement of $50 million. Vicor's insurers paid $13 million. Vicor sought the additional $37 million. A jury awarded $17.3 million. The district court reduced the verdict by $4 million. The First Circuit vacated. The policies refer to "loss of use of property that is not physically injured." The district court should fashion jury instructions making clear that classic loss of use damages (lost profits or rental value of substitute property) incurred while repairs are pending may be recovered, but the actual costs of repairs may not. The court also may instruct the jury regarding the duty to mitigate loss and explain that costs of reasonable mitigation measures are recoverable, provided that the mitigation measures are distinguishable from ordinary repairs and result in a net savings. View "Vicor Corp. v. Vigilant Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Plaintiff began working as a letter carrier in 1980. In 1987, she tripped at work and injured her back. Her workers' compensation claim was allowed and she began to work four hours a day instead of eight. Plaintiff could walk, sit, and stand for up to one hour continuously or up to four hours intermittently. After a 2003 medical exam, plaintiff declined to agree to work five hours and, feeling that her supervisor had bullied her, filed an EEOC complaint. An ALJ ruled in favor of the Postal Service; the EEOC Office of Federal Operations affirmed. In 2008, she sued, alleging: hostile work environment harassment based on disability (Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. 794(a)); retaliation in violation of the Rehabilitation Act; failure to accommodate a disability in violation of the Rehabilitation Act; hostile work environment harassment based on gender (Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 2000e-16); and retaliation in violation of Title VII. The district court entered summary judgment for the Postmaster General. The First Circuit affirmed, reasoning that plaintiff was able to do her job and that she was not regarded as disabled. View "McDonough v. Donahoe" on Justia Law

Petitioner,a citizen of Guatemala applied for special rule cancellation of removal under the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act, 111 Stat. 2160. An Immigration Judge and the Board of Immigration Appeals concluded that he was statutorily ineligible for NACARA relief because he last entered the U.S. as a crewman (8 U.S.C. 1229b(c)(1)). The First Circuit affirmed, rejecting an argument that he was not a "crewman" when he last entered the U.S. Petitioner was given adequate notice that he was removeable for having remained in the U.S. longer than permitted; whether he was a "crewman" was only relevant to his petition for cancellation. View "Gonzalez v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a citizen of Bangladesh, entered the U.S. in 1992 with his wife and son. They overstayed their visas. A daughter was born in 1993 in Los Angeles. Ten days later, petitioner filed an application seeking asylum and withholding of removal under 8 U.S.C. 1158 & 1231(b)(3), and protection under the Convention Against Torture, 8 C.F.R. 1208.16–18. In 2007, the government filed Notices to Appear in immigration court, charging the three with removability. They sought cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. 1229b(b)(1). Petitioner testified that he had been attacked and threatened several times by opponents of his political party. The government noted 2007 reforms in Bangladesh. Petitioner also voiced concerns about his daughter, food shortages, substandard health care, and the cost of education for English speakers. The IJ granted voluntary departure. The BIA affirmed. The First Circuit dismissed an appeal. View "Hasan v. Holder" on Justia Law

PBA is a commonwealth-created public corporation that plans and maintains of physical facilities related to government services. During a reorganization, PBA's board eliminated some positions and created new ones. Plaintiff, a member of the NPP, one of Puerto Rico's two main political parties, applied for three PBA jobs after his position was eliminated. Those who interviewed him were PDP (the other political party) sympathizers. Plaintiff was offered one of the jobs, but considered it a demotion. He was reclassified, like many PBA staffers in both political camps. While his suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, 1985, and 1988 was pending, plaintiff was promoted into another PBA position. The district court entered summary judgment for defendants. The First Circuit affirmed, noting that plaintiff had no property interest in his particular job functions and that there was no evidence that the reorganization decisions were based on loyalties to political parties. View "Soto-Padro v. Pub. Bldg. Auth." on Justia Law

Defendant was 16 years old at the time of the 1986 shooting deaths of two men, but after a hearing in juvenile court, he was transferred for adult criminal proceedings. His first conviction was vacated in 1992. He was convicted again in 1994, and sentenced to life imprisonment. The state supreme court affirmed the juvenile court's transfer decision, his conviction, and his life sentence. In 1999, he filed a motion for a new trial, asserting ineffective assistance of counsel. The trial court rejected the motion and the supreme court affirmed. In 200 he filed a federal petition for habeas corpus. The district court denied the petition. The First Circuit affirmed, stating that it is barred from reviewing the state court decision because it rests on an independent and adequate state ground. View "Costa v. Hall" on Justia Law