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

The Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station in Massachusetts submitted an environmental impact statement (EIS) with its relicensing application in 2006. Before relicensing occurred, an earthquake and tsunami occurred off the coast of Japan, which hit the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant. Less than three months later, Massachusetts moved to admit a contention and to reopen the Pilgrim record, arguing that Fukushima revealed new and significant information that the environmental impact analysis needed to address. The Atomic Safety and Licensing Board denied Massachusetts's motion. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) denied the Commonwealth's petition for review, rejecting the Commonwealth's claims that the EIS was inadequate in light of the damage to Fukushima. The Commonwealth also petitioned for review from the NRC's vote to renew the license of the Pilgrim station. The First Circuit Court of Appeals denied the petition for review, holding that the NRC did not act arbitrarily or capriciously by (1) failing to require supplementation of the EIS in light of Fukushima; and (2) declining to hear Massachusetts' rulemaking petition and to complete all the post-Fukushima review before granting the license. View "Massachusetts v. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n" on Justia Law

William H. Kopke, Jr., Inc. (Kopke) brought an administrative proceeding pursuant to the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act (PACA) against The Alphas Company, Inc. (Alphas), alleging that Alphas had accepted delivery of four truckloads of fruit without paying the appropriate purchase price. On December 7, 2011, the Secretary of Agriculture issued an order awarding Kopke $50,025 plus interest. On January 6, 2012, Alphas sought to appeal the reparation order by filing a petition and notice in the U.S. district court. In connection with its appeal, Alphas submitted, on January 12, 2012, a bond backdated to January 6, 2012 in an attempt to bring it within the time frame of 7 U.S.C. 499g(c). The district court granted Kopke's motion to dismiss, concluding that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because Alphas had failed to comply with the PACA's bond requirements. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that because Alphas did not file a proper bond within the prescribed period, the district court correctly ruled that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to entertain an appeal of the reparation order. View "Alphas Co., Inc. v. William H. Kopke, Jr., Inc." on Justia Law

This dispute about the payment of a penalty imposed on them by the IRS arose out of Plaintiffs' underlying joint personal income tax liability for the tax year 1994. After the IRS audited Plaintiffs for that year, the tax court imposed a penalty on Plaintiffs for failing to timely file a return. Plaintiffs completed payment of their agreed 1994 tax liability under a payment plan. Plaintiffs subsequently filed an administrative claims for refused of the 1994 failure-to-pay penalty and the interest they paid on that penalty. The IRS denied the claim. Plaintiffs filed suit in the district court, and the court granted summary judgment in favor of the government. Plaintiffs appealed, arguing there was at least a dispute of material fact as to whether (1) the IRS was equitably estopped from assessing this fee, (2) they had reasonable cause not to pay the relevant taxes with the time provided by statute, and (3) the IRS had ever provided them with proper notice and demand for payment. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that Plaintiffs failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to any of their claims. View "Shafmaster v. United States" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Ecuador, entered the United States without being admitted or paroled. When Petitioner was placed into removal proceedings, she applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. The immigration judge denied Petitioner's applications for relief. The board of immigration appeals (BIA) dismissed Petitioner's appeal. The First Circuit Court of Appeals denied Petitioner's petition for review of the BIA's order, holding (1) the BIA did not err in concluding that Petitioner was ineligible for asylum, as Petitioner failed to demonstrate her status as a refugee; and (2) because Petitioner failed to demonstrate that she was eligible for asylum, her claims for withholding of removal and relief under CAT also failed. View "Guaman-Loja v. Holder" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs were several dismissed or demoted employees of the State Insurance Fund Corporation, a public corporation that administered Puerto Rico's workers' compensation program. Before the adverse employment actions took effect, Plaintiffs requested informal administrative hearings before the Corporation. Plaintiffs then filed administrative appeals before the Corporation's board of appeals. The board had not acted on the appeals when Plaintiffs sued the Corporation and several of its officers in the U.S. district court, alleging political discrimination and due process violations stemming from adverse employment actions. The district court abstained under Younger v. Harris and dismissed Plaintiffs' claims, finding that Plaintiffs voluntarily engaged the wheels of an administrative procedure before filing an action in federal court. The First Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, holding (1) the district court erred in abstaining based on Younger, and dismissal was not the remedy in any event; and (2) a stay of the federal proceedings was appropriate in this case pending the Puerto Rico Supreme Court's decision in Gonzales Segarra v. State Ins. Fund Corp. View "Casiano-Montanez v. State Ins. Fund Corp." 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

Petitioner, a native and citizen of the Dominican Republic, entered the United States without inspection in 1992. In 1995, an immigration judge (IJ) adjudged Petitioner deportable and gave her until 1996 to voluntarily depart. Petitioner remained in the country. In 2011, Petitioner filed a motion to reopen her removal proceedings, basing her motion on charged circumstances and citing her marriage to a United States citizen and approval of her visa petition. The IJ denied her motion as untimely. The board of appeals affirmed. The First Circuit Court of Appeals denied Petitioner's petition for review, holding that Petitioner missed the deadline to file a motion to reopen, and none of the regulatory exceptions to the deadline applied in this case. View "Paca v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioners, a Pakistani native and his family, sought refuge in the United States in 2009 after the Taliban began attacking Awami National Party (ANP) activists. Petitioner was an active member of the ANP. Later in 2009, Petitioners filed applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. An immigration judge (IJ) denied Petitioners' applications and ordered them removed to Pakistan. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BOA) affirmed the IJ's order. The First Circuit Court of Appeals granted Petitioners' petition for review and vacated the order of the BIA, holding that neither the IJ nor the BIA presented a reasoned analysis of the evidence as a whole in this case. Remanded. View "Khattak v. Holder" on Justia Law

Plaintiff was a partner in a medical practice where she served as a staff anesthesiologist. When Plaintiff's dependence on opioids came to light, her employer had in force a group employee benefit plan, underwritten and administered by Union Security Insurance Company & Management Company for Merrimack Anesthesia Associates Long Term Disability Plan (USIC), which included long-term disability (LTD) benefits. When Plaintiff applied for those benefits, USIC refused to pay benefits past the point when Plaintiff was discharged from a treatment center, finding that Plaintiff's risk for relapse was not the same as a current disability. Plaintiff brought suit in the federal district court. The district court ultimately awarded Plaintiff LTD benefits for the maximum time available under the plan, concluding that categorically excluding the risk of drug abuse relapse was an unreasonable interpretation of the plan. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that, in an addiction context, a risk of relapse can be so significant as to constitute a current disability. View "Colby v. Union Sec. Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Liberia, filed for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. Petitioner conceded his removability, and the immigration judge (IJ) scheduled a merits hearing to adjudicate Petitioner's applications. Because Petitioner's counsel failed to submit required biometric and biographical information to the Department of Homeland Security, the IJ found that Petitioner had abandoned his asylum application and ordered him removed to Liberia. Petitioner did not appeal. Three years later, Petitioner moved to reopen his case, arguing that he had received ineffective assistance of counsel. The IJ denied the motion as untimely. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed. At issue on appeal was whether Petitioner should have the benefit of the equitable tolling doctrine. The First Circuit Court of Appeals denied Petitioner's petition for review, agreeing with the BIA's conclusion that Petitioner's motion to reopen was untimely, as Petitioner had not diligently pursued his rights. View "Bead v. Holder" on Justia Law