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

James Hopkins and John Flannery, two former employees of State Street Bank and Trust Company, were charged with violations of 15 U.S.C. 77q(a), 15 U.S.C. 78j(b), and 17 C.F.R. 240.10b-5 for engaging making material misrepresentations and omissions that misled investors about two State Street-managed funds. The United States Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) Chief Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) dismissed the proceeding, finding that neither defendant was responsible for or had ultimate authority over the documents at issue and that these documents did not contain materially false or misleading statements or omissions. The SEC reversed the ALJ with regard to a slide that Hopkins used at a presentation to a group of investors and two letters that Flannery wrote or had seen before they were sent to a investors. The Commission imposed cease-and-desist orders on both defendants, suspended them from association with any investment adviser or company for one year, and imposed civil monetary penalties. The First Circuit vacated the Commission’s order, holding that the Commission’s findings were not supported by substantial evidence. View "Flannery v. Securities & Exchange Comm’n" on Justia Law

Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents were acting on an alleged tip that undocumented aliens were employed at the Michael Bianco, Inc. factory in New Bedford, Massachusetts when they raided the factory. Petitioner was detained during the raid and was subsequently arrested and detained. During Petitioner’s detention, an ICE agent interviewed Petitioner. The substance of that interview was memorialized in an I-213 form. Petitioner was later served with a Notice to Appear in removal proceedings. Petitioner denied removability and moved to suppress the I-213, arguing that the statements contained therein were obtained in violation of her Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights. On remand, an Immigration Judge (IJ) denied the motion, concluding the government’s introduction of Petitioner’s birth certificate independently established Petitioner’s identity and alienage whether she established egregious misconduct by ICE officers that would warrant suppression of her I-213 form. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed, primarily on the ground that Petitioner had failed to show egregious violations of her constitutional rights. The First Circuit denied Petitioner’s petition for review, holding that Petitioner’s birth certificate was not tainted by any alleged constitutional violations and was sufficient to prove her alienage. View "Garcia-Aguilar v. Lynch" on Justia Law

For more than a decade, the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (SSA) has paid directly to qualified attorneys who bring Supplemental Security Income (SSI) claims a fee of no more than twenty-five percent of the successful recovery of past-due benefits to clients. When a state chooses to administer its own payments, the amount of state payments are not included as “past-due benefits” for the purpose of attorney compensation. In 2012, Attorney represented a client in a claim for SSI benefits before the SSA. In 2013, Attorney’s client received a partially favorable decision. In 2012, however, Massachusetts changed its practice and began administering its own program of supplementary payments rather than rely on federal administration of its supplementary payments. Upon learning that the SSA attorney’s fee award did not include twenty-five percent of the Massachusetts state-administered state supplementary payments, Attorney filed a complaint for declaratory relief and petition for writ of mandamus in the federal district court. The district court granted summary judgment to the Commissioner. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the Commissioner’s interpretation of 42 U.S.C. 1383(d)(2)(B) was reasonable. View "Moriarty v. Colvin" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a Guatemalan national, entered the United States without inspection. Two years later, federal authorities instituted removal proceedings against him. Petitioner conceded removability and cross-applied for withholding of removal and protection under the United Nations Convention Against Torture (CAT). An immigration judge denied Petitioner’s cross-applications and ordered him removed. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denied Petitioner’s appeal. More than one year later, Petitioner filed a motion to reopen his removal proceedings. The BIA denied the motion to reopen, concluding that the motion was untimely and, in any event, Petitioner failed to make a sufficient showing to warrant reopening the removal proceedings. The First Circuit denied Petitioner’s petition for judicial review, holding that the BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying Petitioner’s motion to reopen as untimely. View "Mejia-Ramaja v. Lynch" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of the Dominican Republic, married a U.S. citizen and acquired status as a conditional lawful permanent resident. Petitioner and her spouse subsequently filed an I-751 joint petition (“joint petition”) seeking to remove the conditional nature of Petitioner’s residency status. The Immigration and Naturalization Service denied the petition based on a finding of marriage fraud. Petitioner and her spouse later divorced, and Petitioner was placed in removal proceedings. Petitioner then filed another I-751 petition (“waiver petition”) seeking a waiver of the joint petition requirements and arguing that she had entered into her marriage in good faith. The United States Citizenship and Immigration Services denied the petition, relying on the previous finding of marriage fraud. An immigration judge (IJ) upheld the denial of the waiver petition and found that Petitioner was ineligible for cancellation of removal. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed. The First Circuit denied Petitioner’s petition for judicial review, holding (1) the IJ did not erroneously review the waiver petition instead of the joint petition; and (2) the BIA did not err in declaring Petitioner statutorily ineligible for cancellation of removal. View "Cabrera v. Lynch" on Justia Law

Petitioner, who legally entered the United States on a visitor visa, adjusted his status to that of a conditional permanent resident based on his marriage to Nadine Woodley Davis (“Woodley”), a United States citizen. This status terminated upon the denial of Petitioner’s request for a waiver of the requirement that he file a joint petition with Woodley to remove the conditional status. Petitioner was subsequently charged with removability. Petitioner conceded removability but requested termination of proceedings, adjustment of status, and a review of the waiver application. The Immigration Judge (IJ) denied relief, finding that Petitioner did not enter into his marriage in good faith but rather for the sole purpose of circumventing immigration laws. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed and refused to remand the proceedings to the IJ given Petitioner’s recent marriage to another United States citizen. The First Circuit denied Petitioner’s petition for review, holding (1) substantial evidence supported the IJ’s and the BIA’s conclusions that Petitioner’s marriage to Woodley was not entered into in good faith; and (2) the BIA did not abuse its discretion in deciding to deny Petitioner’s motion to reopen. View "Davis v. Holder" on Justia Law

The United States Department of Education (DOE) Secretary decided through an administrative proceeding that International Junior College of Business and Technology, Inc. (International) could not participate in certain federal student financial assistance programs. Specifically, the DOE found that International failed to comply with a requirement that for-private colleges derive at least ten percent of their revenue from some source other than federal student aid (“the 90/10 rule”). International challenged the decision under the Administrative Procedure Act in a Puerto Rico district court. The district court granted the DOE’s motion for summary judgment, thus dismissing the action. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) the DOE’s 90/10 assessment was proper; (2) the Secretary did not err in rejecting International’s attempts to cure its 90/10 violation; and (3) the magistrate judge did not err by denying International the chance to conduct discovery. View "Int’l Junior Coll. of Bus. & Tech., Inc. v. Duncan" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of China, was ordered removed in absentia. Petitioner filed a pro se motion to reopen, which the Immigration Judge (IJ) denied. Almost fourteen years after he was ordered removed, Petitioner filed a motion to rescind the in absentia removal order and a motion to reopen his removal proceedings to apply for asylum and related relief. The IJ denied Petitioner’s motions as untimely and numerically barred. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissed Petitioner’s appeal. The First Circuit denied Petitioner’s petition for review, holding (1) Liu waived his argument that he exercised the requisite due diligence to warrant equitable tolling; and (2) the BIA and IJ acted within their discretion in determining that Petitioner did not qualify for the changed country conditions exception for filing motions to reopen. View "Liu v. Holder" on Justia Law

Appellant, a citizen of the Dominican Republic, was convicted of illegal reentry into the United States as a previously removed alien. On appeal, Appellant moved to dismiss the indictment on the ground that the underlying order of removal was invalid. The district court refused to dismiss the indictment, ruling that Appellant had not exhausted his administrative remedies and, thus, could not collaterally attack the underlying removal order. Appellant subsequently entered a conditional guilty plea, preserving the right to appeal the denial of his motion to dismiss. The First Circuit affirmed the district court’s order denying Appellant’s motion to dismiss his indictment, holding that because Appellant did not exhaust his administrative remedies in connection with the underlying removal, he could not collaterally attack that removal in his criminal case. View "United States v. Soto-Mateo" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native of Jordan, was ordered deported in 1997. In 2002, Petitioner married a United States citizen. Petitioner’s wife filed a Form I-130 petition on Petitioner’s behalf for an immigrant visa. In 2009, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services granted the I-130 petition. While the petition was pending, Petitioner moved to reopen his immigration proceedings and sought an adjustment of status based on his marriage. In 2010, Petitioner was arrested on six counts related to the illegal sale of prescription drugs. In 2011, the Immigration Judge (IJ) denied Petitioner’s application for adjustment of status and ordered him removed, concluding that the circumstances underlying Petitioner’s pending criminal charges outweighed the evidence favorable to him. The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed. Petitioner appealed. The First Circuit dismissed Petitioner’s petition for review, holding that the Court lacked jurisdiction to review the IJ’s purely discretionary decision. View "Mele v. Lynch" on Justia Law