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

In 2011, the then-Governor of Puerto Rico appointed Plaintiff to the position of Advocate for Persons with Disabilities. In 2013, new legislation established an Office of the Ombudsman for Personal with Disabilities. Plaintiff was subsequently informed that an Ombudsman had been appointed and that his position had been abolished by legislative act. Plaintiff sued the Governor and other officials for attempting to oust him from his job as Advocate, claiming that it was unconstitutional for Puerto Rico to abolish the Advocate position without an individualized hearing. The district court issued a preliminary injunction in favor of Plaintiff. The First Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the district court’s order, concluding that the court erred in finding that Plaintiff had demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits where there was no viable claim that the abolition of the Advocate Office independently violated some constitutional proscription. View "Diaz-Carrasquillo v. Garcia-Padilla" on Justia Law

Plaintiff was a long-time employee of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). Plaintiff was separated from her employment as a result of her inability to return to the workplace resulting from severe depression. Plaintiff filed a complaint against the IRS alleging that she had been constructively discharged on account of her disability in violation of the Rehabilitation Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act. The district court dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint on the ground that Plaintiff had not lodged her administrative complaint within forty-five days of the incident, as statutorily required, thereby rejecting Plaintiff’s contention that equitable tolling applied to her claim. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that Plaintiff did not establish that equitable tolling should be applied to save her untimely administrative action. View "Bartlett v. Dep't of Treasury" on Justia Law

Petitioners, Nova Flora Marsadu and Roly Rondonuwu, were a married couple who were native citizens of Indonesia. Marsadu, and later Rondonuwu, filed applications for asylum based on their fears of being persecuted in Indonesia due to their Christian faith. An immigration judge (IJ) denied Petitioners’ claims. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed the IJ’s decision. Petitioners later filed an untimely motion with the BIA to reopen removal proceedings, arguing that they were prima facie eligible for asylum due to recent changes in Indonesia’s conditions that put them at risk of persecution. The BIA denied Petitioners’ motion to reopen removal proceedings, concluding that Petitioners failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that they would face religious persecution if they returned to Indonesia. The First Circuit Court of Appeals denied Petitioners' petition for review, holding that Petitioners failed to demonstrate error sufficient to warrant reopening of their removal proceedings. View "Marsadu v. Holder" on Justia Law

This appeal concerned the decade-long litigation regarding the regulation of Puerto Rico’s milk industry. The district court approved a comprehensive Settlement Agreement reached by the original parties: the government defendants, including the Office of the Milk Industry Regulatory Administration for the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (Spanish acronym “ORIL”), and the plaintiff milk processors, Vaqueria Tres Monjitas, Inc. and Suiza Dairy, Inc. After the district court approved of the Agreement, ORIL filed a motion to alter or amend the judgment, challenging the portion of the district court order opining that Puerto Rico had waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity by entering into the Agreement. The district court denied ORIL’s motion. The First Circuit Court of Appeals (1) held that the language at issue was merely a statement of dicta and not a judgment, and consistent with this construction, the district court was strongly encouraged to strike the statement; and (2) otherwise dismissed the appeal for want of jurisdiction. View "Vaqueria Tres Monjitas, Inc. v. Comas-Pagan" on Justia Law

In 1999, Redondo Construction Corporation pled guilty to aiding and abetting the making of false statements during its work on a federal highway project. The Puerto Rico Highway and Transportation Authority (“PRHTA”) and the Puerto Rico Public Guildings Authority (“PBA”) subsequently revoked the bids it had awarded Redondo before the plea and suspended Redondo from bidding on new contracts. Redondo challenged both decisions, which resulted in settlement agreements with both agencies allowing Redondo to resume bidding for contracts. After Puerto Rico passed Law 458, which prohibited Puerto Rico agencies from awarding contracts corporations convicted of offenses involving public funds, the PBA cancelled several of Redondo’s bids and the contract it had executed with Redondo, and the PRHTA withdrew from its settlement with Redondo. Redondo sued PRHTA, PBA, and several officials at both agencies, alleging that Defendants were in breach of the settlement agreements, that this caused Redondo’s bankruptcy, and that Defendants were liable in damages. The district court granted the PRHTA’s and the individual defendants’ motions for summary judgment and sua sponte dismissed Redondo’s claims against the PBA. The First Circuit Court of Appeals (1) affirmed the entry of summary judgment as to the PRHTA and the individual defendants, as Redondo had no record of evidence of damages against these defendants; but (2) vacated the dismissal of the claim against the PBA, as the court did not meet the necessary conditions for entering judgment sua sponte. View "Redondo Constr. Corp. v. Izquierdo" on Justia Law

Plaintiff was a real estate broker in Puerto Rico who was a vocal critic of the Puerto Rico Real Estate Examining Board. After the Board denied Plaintiff’s application for a license to establish a bilingual real estate school, Plaintiff filed suit against the Board and several individuals associated with it, claiming that the Board denied her a license in retaliation for her public criticism of the Board, thereby violating her First Amendment rights. The district court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, concluding that the Board had a legitimate non-discriminatory reason - the tardiness of Plaintiff’s application - for rejecting the application. The First Circuit Court of Appeals reversed vacated the district court’s judgment, holding that Plaintiff’s allegations plausibly stated a claim under 42 U.S.C. 1983. Remanded. View "Maloy v. Ballori-Lage" on Justia Law

Petitioners, a married couple from Guatemala, entered the United States illegally in the mid-1990s. In 2008, Petitioners applied for asylum. Their application was denied, and removal proceedings subsequently began. Petitioners conceded removability but sought cancellation of removal, asserting that their departure would cause hardship to their twelve-year-old son, Brian, who was born in the United States and would, Petitioners claimed, face several formidable obstacles in Guatemala. An immigration judge (IJ) denied Petitioners’ application and ordered them removed to Guatemala, finding that Petitioners failed to meet the hardship eligibility requirement for cancellation of removal. The Board of Immigration Appeals upheld the IJ’s judgment. The First Circuit Court of Appeals denied in part and otherwise dismissed Petitioners’ petition for review, holding that the IJ correctly found that the evidence presented by Petitioners was not capable of supporting an “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” finding. View "Alvarado v. Holder" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, the former captain of a village fire department, filed this action against the department, its fire chief, and the board of fire commissioners (collectively, Defendants) after the board chose to terminate Plaintiff’s employment. Plaintiff alleged political discrimination in violation of the First Amendment and 42 U.S.C. 1983, retaliation in violation of the Massachusetts Whistleblower Act, and tortious interference with contractual relations. The district court granted summary judgment for Defendants on all counts. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that Defendants presented legitimate, business-related grounds for their employment decisions, and Plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the proffered explanations were pretextual. View "Pierce v. Cotuit Fire Dist." on Justia Law

Petitioner was charged with removability based on the termination of her conditional permanent resident status. Petitioner conceded removability but filed multiple I-751 forms with the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and requested waivers of the joint-filing requirement for removal of conditions on permanent residency. The USCIS denied the petitions. An immigration judge (IJ) ordered removal and denied Petitioner’s waiver requests because Petitioner failed to establish either good faith or extreme hardship. Also, in an exercise of the IJ’s discretion, the IJ separately denied Petitioner’s requests for a waiver because of moral character concerns due to Petitioner’s having been convicted of theft. The board of immigration appeals (BIA) adopted the decision of the IJ. The First Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed Petitioner’s petition for review for want of jurisdiction because Petitioner raised no colorable legal or constitutional claims upon review. View "Lopez v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native of Guatemala, illegally entered the United States in 2003. In 2006, Petitioner was charged as removable. Petitioner conceded his removability and applied for withholding of removal, protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), and voluntary departure from the United States. At a merits hearing before the immigration judge (IJ), Petitioner testified that he feared being the victim of gang violence in Guatemala because he taught and counseled students to avoid joining gangs. The IJ denied Petitioner’s applications for withholding of removal and CAT protection and granted him voluntary departure. The board of immigration appeals (BIA) dismissed Petitioner’s appeal. Petitioner subsequently moved to reopen removal proceedings on the basis of new evidence he claimed showed that teachers who opposed gang practices were being persecuted. The BIA denied the motion. The First Circuit Court of Appeals denied Petitioner’s petition for review, holding that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in finding the new evidence did not warrant a different outcome in Petitioner’s case or in finding the new evidence was not material. View "Rosales-Perez v. Holder" on Justia Law