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

Father and Mother were the biological parents of Child, a girl born in Puerto Rico in 2009. In 2011, Mother and Child moved to the United Kingdom, where they stayed with Father. In 2012, Mother absconded to Puerto Rico with Child. Father subsequently filed a petition for the return of Child under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (Hague Convention) and the International Child Abduction Remedies Act, alleging that Mother wrongfully removed Child from her habitual residence. The U.S. district court granted Mother's motion to dismiss on the ground that Father never presented his affidavit of paternity to Puerto Rico's vital statistics registry. The First Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the district court erred when it dismissed Father's petition on the grounds that he did not have rights of custody, as (1) Father's marriage to Mother legitimated Child under Puerto Rico law; and (2) as a result, Father had parental responsibility for Child under United Kingdom law, which meant he had rights of custody under the Hague Convention. Remanded for a trial. View "Patrick v. Rivera-Lopez" on Justia Law

In 2003, Petitioner pled guilty to conspiracy-to-commit larceny stemming from a scheme in which Petitioner stole from the dorm rooms of his college classmates. At the time, Petitioner was a lawful permanent resident. Consequently, an immigration judge and the board of immigration appeals (BIA) found that Petitioner was removable because his crimes involved "moral turpitude" within the meaning of the Immigration and Nationality Act. The First Circuit Court of Appeals granted Petitioner's petition for review and vacated the BIA's order dismissing Petitioner's appeal, holding that the BIA erred in finding Petitioner removable, as there was no statement in Petitioner's plea colloquy admitting an intent to commit a permanent deprivation. Remanded. View "Patel v. Holder" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition and sought to surrender their home. When Plaintiffs' mortgage lenders (collectively, Beneficial) refused to foreclose or otherwise take title to the residence, Plaintiffs demanded that the mortgage lien be released. After Beneficial also refused to release the mortgage lien, Plaintiffs began an adversary proceeding claiming a discharge injunction violation. The bankruptcy court found Beneficial did not violate the discharge injunction. The bankruptcy appellate panel affirmed. Plaintiffs appealed, arguing that because the facts of this case so closely mirrored those in Pratt v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., the same result should follow. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the bankruptcy court's judgment, holding that the bankruptcy court's legal conclusions were correct and that the court did not err in its judgment. View "Canning v. Beneficial Me., Inc." on Justia Law