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

Petitioner, a citizen of Nigeria, entered the United States using a false name and fraudulently obtained visa. After the government commenced removal proceedings, Petitioner filed for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture, citing fear of religious persecution. The immigration judge denied relief and ordered removal. The board of immigration appeals (BIA) affirmed. The BIA denied Petitioner's motion to reopen, which added a claim for asylum, and his subsequently filed motion to reconsider. The First Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed Petitioner's petition for review his motion to reopen and denied Petitioner's petition to review his motion to reconsider, holding that the BIA did not abuse its discretion or err in its judgment. View "Saka v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Albania, entered the United States illegally using a fraudulent passport. After Petitioner was charged with removal, Petitioner conceded his removability but filed an application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. The immigration judge denied Petitioner's applications, concluding (1) Petitioner established that he had suffered past persecution in Albania due to his political sympathies and his ethnic background and was consequently entitled to a presumption of a well-founded fear of future persecution, but (2) the government's admitted evidence was sufficient to rebut the presumption. The board of immigration appeals (BIA) affirmed, finding that the government's evidence of changed country conditions rebutted the presumption of relief raised by Petitioner's past persecution on political and ethnic grounds. The First Circuit Court of Appeals denied Petitioner's petition for review, holding that the evidence supported the BIA's finding of materially changed country conditions since Petitioner's departure, and therefore, the BIA did not err in denying Petitioner's applications. View "Ruci v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of China, entered the United States illegally and was charged with removability. Petitioner conceded removability but requested relief in the form of asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The second time the matter was before the immigration judge (IJ), the IJ determined that Petitioner was not entitled to relief in any form. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissed Petitioner's appeal, concluding that Petitioner's applications for relief were governed by the REAL ID Act and that Petitioner was not entitled to relief from removal. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the BIA (1) erred in determining the REAL ID Act applied to Petitioner's case, but the error was harmless; and (2) did not err in finding Petitioner failed to establish that he was entitled to asylum where he did not demonstrate that he had experienced past persecution or that he had a well founded fear of future persecution. View "Wu v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of the People's Republic of China, was charged with being subject to removal. Petitioner conceded removability. Petitioner subsequently submitted an application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief pursuant to the Convention Against Torture, which the immigration judge denied. The board of immigration appeals (BIA) affirmed. Petitioner later moved to reopen his case, citing changed country conditions and claiming that he would be targeted for persecution on account of his religion. The BIA denied Petitioner's 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 for failure to establish prima facie eligibility for any form of relief. View "Wu v. Holder" on Justia Law

The Department of Homeland Security instituted removal proceedings against Petitioner, a Guatemalan national, who had entered the United States without inspection. Petitioner applied for withholding of removal, protection under the Convention Against Torture, and, alternatively, post-hearing voluntary departure. The immigration judge denied Petitioner's requests for relief. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissed Petitioner's appeal. Eight months later, Petitioner filed a motion to reopen to allow him to apply for pre-hearing voluntary departure, but because the motion was filed beyond the time allotted by the applicable regulation, the motion was addressed to the BIA's sua sponte authority to reopen. The BIA denied the motion and subsequently refused reconsideration. The First Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed Petitioner's petition for judicial review of the denial of reconsideration, holding that it lacked the authority to review the BIA's denial of Petitioner's motion to reconsider the failure to grant relief where Petitioner's motion to reopen was untimely. View "Charuc v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of the Dominican Republic, entered the United States without admission or parole. In 2005, the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service charged Petitioner as removable. After a hearing in 2008 at which Petitioner did not appear, the immigration judge ordered Petitioner removed in absentia. In 2009, Petitioner filed a motion to reopen in order to submit an application for cancellation of removal. The immigration court granted the motion to reopen. A few days before the deadline for her application, Petitioner filed a motion for continuance seeking additional time to file the application. After the deadline had passed, the immigration court denied the motion for continuance and held that Petitioner had abandoned the application for cancellation. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) the BIA did not err in concluding that Petitioner was statutorily ineligible for cancellation of removal; and (2) the immigration court did not abuse its discretion by denying the motion for continuance. View "Soto v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of the Dominican Republic, was admitted to the United States as a lawful permanent resident in 1969. In 2008 and 2009, Petitioner pleaded nolo contendere in state court in two separate cases to possession of a controlled substance. The Department of Homeland Security subsequently initiated removal proceedings against Petitioner as an alien convicted of violating a law relating to a controlled substance. Petitioner applied for cancellation of removal. An immigration judge (IJ) granted Petitioner's application for relief because of Petitioner's extended residency, strong family ties, and history of employment in the United States. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) vacated the IJ's decision, determining (1) Petitioner's second state conviction triggered the statutory bar against her application for removal; and (2) Petitioner failed to establish a claim for relief on the merits. On remand, the IJ entered an order of removal, and the BIA affirmed. The First Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed Petitioner's petition for review for lack of jurisdiction because it could not overturn a BIA's discretionary denial of relief, and any opinion it reached on Petitioner's statutory or procedural claims would be purely advisory and beyond the Court's authority. View "Ortega v. Holder" on Justia Law

The City of Springfield enacted two local ordinances that imposed new legal duties on (1) property owners to maintain property during the foreclosure process and provide a $10,000 cash bond per foreclosure to the City, and (2) mortgagees to attempt a settlement through negotiations before foreclosing. In dispute was the definition of "owner" in the first ordinance, which included mortgagees who were not in possession and had begun the foreclosure process. The ordinance imposed the duties on the mortgagees whether the mortgagors were still in possession. Six banks sued in state court, seeking to have the ordinances invalidated as inconsistent with and preempted by comprehensive state laws governing foreclosure and property maintenance and as inconsistent with state and federal constitutional guarantees. The case was removed to federal district court, which concluded that the ordinances were valid. The banks appealed. The First Circuit Court of Appeals certified dispositive state law questions to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court because the outcome of the case depended on unresolved questions of Massachusetts law and raised significant policy concerns better suited for resolution by that state court. View "Easthampton Savings Bank v. City of Springfield" on Justia Law

Under the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (WIA), Maine obtained federal funding to strengthen local workforces. Plaintiff was the executive director of the Local Area I Workforce Investment Board (LWIB). Plaintiff reported to and received her salary from Aroostook County, and the County used WIA funds for this purpose. Federal monitors from the Department of Labor undertook a compliance review of the LWIB and found that Plaintiff's job description was not in compliance with federal program requirements because, absent an express agreement between the LWIB and the County, the County could not be Plaintiff's employer. Plaintiff transmitted results of the federal monitoring visit but did so as part of her job responsibilities. The Northern Maine Development Commission, Inc. (NMDC) was later designated as the fiscal agent for the LWIB, and Plaintiff's employment was terminated. Plaintiff applied for NMDC's director of workforce development petition was not hired. Plaintiff then filed this Maine Whistleblowers' Protection Act (MWPA) action against NMDC for violating the whistleblower law. The district court granted summary judgment for NMDC. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that, on the undisputed facts, Plaintiff was not a whistleblower under the MWPA and so had no claim against NMDC. View "Winslow v. Aroostook County" on Justia Law

Petitioners, natives and citizens of Russia, overstayed their visas and applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). An immigration judge (IJ) denied Petitioners' applications but granted them voluntary departure. In regards to Petitioners' asylum application, the IJ found that Petitioner Pavel Ivanov's testimony about mistreatment he experienced because of his Pentecostal faith was credible and consistent, but that the persecution Ivanov experienced in Russia was not "on account of" his Pentecostal faith. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) summarily affirmed the IJ's asylum determination. The First Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the order of the BIA affirming the IJ's decision and remanded for further proceedings, holding that Ivanov established his eligibility for asylum. View "Ivanov v. Holder" on Justia Law