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

Petitioner was a Salvadoran national who entered the United States without inspection. After the Department of Homeland Security placed him in removal proceedings, Petitioner conceded removability and cross-applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the United National Convention Against Torture. An immigration judge (IJ) denied Petitioner's cross-application and entered an order of removal. Petitioner appealed, contending that threats to his life or freedom because of his membership in a gang precluded his removal. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed the IJ's decision. Petitioner subsequently filed a motion to reconsider the order. In support of his motion, he argued, for the first time, that his family constituted a particular social group and that he feared persecution on account of his family membership, among other things. The BIA denied the motion because it did not identify any error of fact or law in the BIA's original decision. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that Petitioner in this situation may not proffer, as the basis for a motion to reconsider, a ground for relief which, though previously available, was not previously asserted. View "Martinez-Lopez v. Holder" on Justia Law

NextEra Energy Seabrook, LLC, which operated a nuclear power plant in Seabrook, New Hampshire, applied to renew its operating license. NextEra submitted a required environmental report that concluded that offshore wind electric generation was not a reasonable alternative to the extended licensing of Seabrook. Several environmental groups (collectively, Petitioners) questioned and sought a hearing on NextEra's environmental report. The Atomic Safety and Licensing Board admitted the contention, but the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) denied the admission of the contention, which resulted in Petitioners not being entitled to have a hearing on the merits about their contention that generation of electricity from offshore wind was a reasonable alternative source of baseload energy to the relicensing of Seabrook. The First Circuit Court of Appeals denied Petitioners' petition for review, holding (1) the NRC did not misapply case law interpreting the National Environmental Policy Act in formulating its contention-admissibility standard; and (2) NRC's conclusion that the contention was inadmissible was not arbitrary or capricious, and there was no basis in law to set it aside. View "Beyond Nuclear v. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n" on Justia Law

Removal proceedings were initiated against Petitioner as an alien who entered the United States without inspection. Although he conceded removability, Petitioner indicated that he intended to use the proceeding to obtain adjustment of his immigration status. An immigration judge (IJ) denied Petitioner's application, concluding that Petitioner failed to meet his burden of showing that his application was timely filed. Petitioner appealed, arguing that the IJ erred by relying on the stamped date of his application rather than the original submission date and therefore in not adjusting his status. The board of immigration appeals (BIA) dismissed Petitioner's appeal, finding no clear error in the IJ's determination. The First Circuit Court of Appeals denied Petitioner's petition for review, holding that the BIA did not err in its judgment. View "Wu v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioners, a wife and husband, were Chinese nationals. In removal proceedings, Petitioners argued that, if repatriated, they would be subjected to involuntary sterilization. The Immigration Judge (IJ) determined that Petitioners' testimony was not believable and, therefore, Petitioners had failed to establish either past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution. On appeal, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) (1) affirmed the denial of Petitioners' applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the United Nations Convention Against Torture; and (2) denied Petitioners' motion for reconsideration. Petitioners sought judicial review. The First Circuit Court of Appeals denied the petitions for review, holding (1) the BIA did not engage in improper factfinding to sustain the adverse credibility determinations; and (2) the IJ and BIA did not err in rejecting Petitioners' claims for asylum based on a well-founded fear of future persecution. View "Chen v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioners, a husband and wife and their son, were citizens and natives of Armenia who were ordered removed from the United States following the denial of their asylum claim in 1997. They resided in the country until 2011, when they filed a motion to reopen their asylum claim. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denied this motion, and Petitioners appealed. The First Circuit Court of Appeals held that, although the BIA's refusal to open must be affirmed, the Court would stay the mandate as to the son for ninety days to allow him to apply for relief because he was a strong candidate for deferred action. To ensure the family was not removed before the government had time to consider the question, the Court also stayed the mandate for ninety days as to the husband and wife. View "Gasparian v. Holder" on Justia Law

This case involved legal challenges to recent federal management actions taken in New England's sensitive Multispecies Groundfish Fishery (Fishery). The challenges centered on the promulgation of a new groundfish Fishery Management Plan (FMP), Amendment Sixteen, which altered and expanded the Fishery's preexisting "sector allocation program" and established new restrictions on fishing activities to end and prevent overfishing. Plaintiffs filed suit in federal court alleging that Amendment Sixteen conflicted with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Reauthorization Act's provisions governing "limited access privilege programs," with the ten "national standards" applicable to all FMPs, and with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Plaintiffs unsuccessfully sought to enjoin implementation of Amendment Sixteen. The district court granted summary judgment for Defendants as to all claims. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed entry of judgment for Defendants, holding (1) Amendment Sixteen was implemented with the protections required by the Reauthorization Act; (2) Amendment Sixteen was consistent with the ten national standards; and (3) Amendment Sixteen was implemented in accordance with the requirements of NEPA. View "City of New Bedford v. Locke" on Justia Law

Petitioner's husband was employed by GD Arabia, Ltd. as a military trainer in Saudi Arabia. After he was found dead by asphyxiation by hanging, Petitioner filed a claim for death benefits under the Defense Base Act (DBA). Pursuant to agency policy and as authorized by statute, the matter was transferred to the district director's office in Boston and adjudicated there. An ALJ denied Petitioner's claim, and the Department of Labor's Benefits Review Board affirmed. Petitioner sought direct review in the First Circuit Court of Appeals, raising an issue of jurisdiction on which the circuit courts were divided. The First Circuit denied the petition for review, holding that the Review Board acted reasonably in upholding the ALJ's denial of compensation, as the record supported the inference of suicide and none of Petitioner's suggested hypotheses might entail coverage under the DBA. View "Truczinskas v. Dir., Office of Workers' Comp. Programs" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native of El Salvador who entered the United States without inspection at the age of seventeen, sought judicial review of a final order of removal issued by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under Article III of the United Nations Convention Against Torture (CAT). The First Circuit Court of Appeals denied Petitioner's petition for review, holding that Petitioner failed to establish that he was a refugee under immigration laws because he did not provide sufficient evidence to establish a well-founded fear of future persecution. In addition, Petitioner was not eligible for relief under the CAT, as he set forth no evidence that there was any prospect he would be tortured if he was returned to El Salvador. View "Perlera-Sola v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Guatemala, entered the United States without inspection. The Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) later issued Petitioner a notice to appear in removal proceedings. An immigration judge (IJ) denied Petitioner's application for withholding of removal but granted his application for voluntary departure. The board of immigration appeals (BIA) affirmed the IJ's decision and dismissed Petitioner's appeal. The First Circuit Court of Appeals denied Petitioner's petition for review, holding (1) the BIA did not err by determining that Petitioner had not been a victim of past persecution in Guatemala; (2) Petitioner's argument that the BIA erred in finding he was not a member of a particular social group was not grounds for granting his petition for review; and (3) imposing a requirement of "social visibility" as to "social groups" did not constitute an arbitrary and capricious agency interpretation. View "Tay-Chan v. Holder" on Justia Law

Erasmo Rojas-Perez (Rojas), the lead petitioner in this case, and his wife, Angelica Garcia-Angeles (Garcia), sought review of a final order of removal issued by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). Petitioners, who had entered the United States without inspection, had filed applications for withholding of removal based on their stated belief that if the family returned to Mexico, their son, a U.S. citizen by virtue of being born in the U.S., could be kidnapped and held for ransom. The BIA reasoned that Petitioners' stated fear was not properly grounded in their belonging to a discernible social group under the Immigration and Nationality Act because "fear of persecution based on perceived wealth does not constitute a particular social group under the [INA]." The First Circuit Court of Appeals denied Rojas's petition for review, as the BIA's determinations were based on substantial evidence in the record. View "Rojas-Perez v. Holder" on Justia Law