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

Petitioners were brothers and natives and citizens of Guatemala. While they lived in Guatemala, their father was kidnapped and murdered by the family of a business associate. Petitioners had paid a ransom to the kidnappers, but threats against Petitioners continued, and Petitioners fled to the United States. Petitioners subsequently filed an application for asylum and withholding of removal, asserting that they were persecuted on account of their membership in a particular social group, which they defined as their immediate family. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denied the applications, concluding that the harm Petitioners suffered in Guatemala was not on account of their membership in a protected social group and that it was less likely than not that they would be tortured by government authorities upon returning to their home country. The First Circuit reversed, holding that the BIA’s conclusion as to the asylum claim was legally flawed and not supported by the record. Remanded for further proceedings.View "Aldana-Ramos v. Holder" on Justia Law

Robert Snyder operated a business in a building that he owned in the city of Waltham, Massachusetts. After Snyder fired an employee who served as a member of the Waltham city council, the former employee complained to the city building department that Snyder’s use of his building violated a local land use ordinance. Code enforcement officers investigated Snyder’s use of his property and fined him under the ordinance. Snyder contested the fines in the district court, alleging that the city and five individuals violated his rights to equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment by singling him out for differential treatment for reasons unique to him. The defendants moved for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity. The district court denied the motion. The First Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the district court’s denial of the two defendants’ motion for summary judgment, holding that the local government officials did not violate any clearly established federal law, and therefore, the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity.View "Snyder v. Collura" on Justia Law

In 1999, Petitioner admitted to a single count of shoplifting in Massachusetts state court. In 2012, Petitioner admitted to an amended charge of larceny by inducement. The following year, Petitioner was charged with removability as an alien who has been convicted of or admits to having committed "a crime involving moral turpitude.” Petitioner applied for special rule cancellation, arguing that he fell within the petty offense exception because his shoplifting conviction was not a crime involving moral turpitude. The Immigration Judge denied Petitioner’s application. The Board of Immigration Appeals dismissed Petitioner’s appeal, concluding that the IJ properly found that Petitioner’s shoplifting conviction was, in addition to the larceny conviction, a crime involving moral turpitude, making him ineligible for the petty offense exception. The First Circuit granted Petitioner’s petition for review, holding that the BIA did not provide a comprehensive analysis to support its conclusion Petitioner’s shoplifting conviction was also a crime involving moral turpitude, and therefore, the case must be remanded to the BIA for further proceedings.View "Mejia v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of the Dominican Republic, married a United States citizen and obtained permanent resident status on a conditional basis. After Petitioner and his wife divorced, Petitioner applied for a waiver of the joint petition requirement under section 216(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. The Immigration Judge (IJ) reviewed and denied the application, concluding that Petitioner’s marriage was not entered into in good faith, as required for the waiver. The IJ granted Petitioner thirty days for voluntary departure. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissed the appeal and extended the time within which Petitioner could voluntarily depart. Petitioner subsequently filed a motion to reopen based on a pending I-130 visa petition filed by his daughter, who was a United States citizen. The BIA denied the motion, finding that Petitioner was not eligible to adjust his status because he failed to voluntarily depart within the time frame established by the IJ and the BIA. The First Circuit denied Petitioner’s petition for review, holding (1) Petitioner was statutorily ineligible for the relief he sought in the motion to reopen; and (2) the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Petitioner’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim. View "Taveras-Duran v. Holder" on Justia Law

In this insurance coverage dispute, the driver involved in an accident filed a claim with the Insurer of the other vehicle involved in the accident. The Insurer denied the claim. The Office of the Insurance Commissioner reviewed the denial and ordered the Insurer to adjust and resolve the claim. The Insurer did not file an appeal and instead filed a complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief in the federal district court. The district court dismissed the federal court action on res judicata grounds. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that res judicata barred this action and no exceptions to res judicata applied. View "Universal Ins. Co. v. Office of the Ins. Comm'r" on Justia Law

In 2013, the City of Worcester, Massachusetts adopted the Aggressive Panhandling Ordinance and the Pedestrian Safety Ordinance, which prohibited coercive or risky behavior by panhandlers, other solicitors, and demonstrators seeking the attention of motor vehicle drivers. Two plaintiffs were homeless people who solicited donations from the City’s sidewalks. The third plaintiff was a City school committee member who had customarily displayed political signs near traffic during the campaign season. Plaintiffs brought suit challenging the new ordinances as violating their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The district court denied a preliminary injunction against enforcing the ordinances, concluding that Plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits of any of their constitutional claims. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s denial of a preliminary injunction as to all provisions of the ordinances except for the Aggressive Panhandling Ordinance’s prohibition against nighttime solicitation, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the preliminary injunction. View "Thayer v. City of Worcester" on Justia Law

Plaintiff received coverage under Johnson & Johnson’s Long-Term Disability Plan while working for a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson. Later, Johnson & Johnson and Medical Card System, Inc. (together, Appellees) terminated Plaintiff’s long-term disability benefits. The district court upheld the denial, holding that the plan administrator had ample basis for finding Plaintiff did not cooperate fully during the Functional Capacity Examination (FCE) and was thus ineligible for continuing benefits. Plaintiff again appealed, arguing, among other things, that the plan administrator abused its discretion in crediting an examination by a physical therapist over the opinion of his treating physician. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) the plan administrator’s finding that Plaintiff was uncooperative during his final FCE was supported by substantial evidence, and therefore, the administrator’s decision to terminate Plaintiff’s long-term disability benefits was neither arbitrary nor capricious; and (2) the administrator did not abuse its discretion in determining whether there existed grounds for termination of Plaintiff’s benefits. View "Ortega-Candelaria v. Johnson & Johnson" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native of Guatemala, entered the United States without inspection sometime in 1999 or 2000. In 2006, Petitioner was charged with removability. In 2011, Petitioner conceded removability and filed an application for withholding of removal, arguing that he would be targeted for extortion and violence by Guatemalan gangs because he had stayed in the United States for an extended period and thus would be perceived as wealthy upon his return to Guatemala. An Immigration Judge denied Petitioner’s application, concluding that Petitioner had failed to show that he was a member of a particular social group and could not show a “clear probability” that he would likely be persecuted upon returning to Guatemala. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed. The First Circuit Court of Appeals denied Petitioner’s petition for review, holding that the BIA’s judgment was reasonable and consistent with the Court’s past precedent, as well as with its own. View "Sam v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of China, came to the United States without a visa or other valid entry document. Petitioner applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture, asserting that she opposed China’s population control policy and would be forced to undergo involuntary sterilization if she were returned to China. After a hearing, an Immigration Judge found that Petitioner was not credible, denied all forms of relief, and ordered Petitioner removed to China. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed. Petitioner filed a motion to reopen the removal proceedings, which the BIA denied as untimely. More than seven years after her first untimely motion and almost twelve years after she was first ordered removed to China, Petitioner filed a second motion to reopen, alleging a material change in country conditions. The BIA denied Petitioner’s motion, concluding that Petitioner’s second motion to reopen was untimely and number-barred under 8 C.F.R. 1003.2(c)(2) and not subject to any exceptions. The First Circuit Court of Appeals denied Petitioner’s petition for review, holding that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Petitioner’s petition. View "Lin v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Indonesia, was charged with removability because he was a noncitizen who overstayed his tourist visa. Petitioner conceded removability but applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture, asserting that he feared returning to Indonesia because he believed he would be subjected to persecution due to his Christian faith. The Immigration Judge denied all relief. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denied Petitioner’s untimely motion to reopen asylum proceedings, concluding that Petitioner failed to demonstrate a change in country circumstances that would excuse the untimeliness of his motion. The First Circuit Court of Appeals denied Petitioner’s petition for review, holding that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Petitioner’s motion to reopen. View "Simarmata v. Holder" on Justia Law