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

The First Circuit denied in part and dismissed in part Petitioner's petition for review of a final order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming the decision of an immigration judge (IJ) finding Petitioner removable and ordering him removed from the United States, holding that this Court lacked jurisdiction in part.At issue was the denial of Petitioner's application for adjustment of immigration status, waiver of inadmissibility, asylum withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. On appeal, Petitioner argued that the agency relied on a wrong legal standard and wrongfully applied that standard in his case. The First Circuit held (1) the BIA adequately considered the question of extraordinary circumstances called for in Matter of Jean, 23 I. & N. Dec. 373 (A.G. 2002); and (2) this Court lacked jurisdiction to consider the relative weight the BIA accorded to the evidence to deny the waiver of inadmissibility. View "Peulic v. Garland" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Defendant's petition for habeas relief, holding that the district court did not err in its treatment of Defendant's claim for habeas relief based on Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986).Defendant was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to life in prison. On appeal, Defendant raised a Batson claim of race-based discrimination in jury selection. The state court denied Defendant's appeal. Thereafter, Defendant filed a petition for habeas relief based on Batson. The federal district court denied relief. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court did not unreasonably apply clearly established Supreme Court case law in concluding that Defendant did not establish the prima facie case of purposeful race-based discrimination required by Batson. View "Yacouba-Issa v. Calis" on Justia Law

The First Circuit granted Petitioner's petition for review of a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming the denial of Petitioner's claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the United Nations Convention Against Torture (CAT), holding that the immigration judge's (IJ) credibility judgment was not supported by substantial evidence.The IJ rejected Petitioner's petition for relief based on an adverse credibility determination that primarily drew its support from a gang assessment database. The BIA affirmed. Petitioner then petitioned for review, arguing that the agency's reliance on the flawed gang package undermined the credibility finding and resulted in a due process violation. The First Circuit granted the petition after noting the flaws in the gang assessment database, including the database's reliance on an erratic point system built on unsubstantiated inferences, holding that neither the agency's adverse credibility determination nor its denial of Petitioner's claims was supported by substantial evidence. View "Ortiz v. Garland" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court granting Father's petition seeking the return of seven-year-old Child from Massachusetts to Brazil, holding that the district court did not err or abuse its discretion.Father filed his petition pursuant to The Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction and the International Child Abduction Remedies Act, alleging that Mother removed Child from Brazil to Massachusetts without his authorization. The district court granted Father's petition and ordered that Child be returned to Brazil. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court (1) did not err in finding that returning Child to Brazil would not expose Child to a grave risk of harm; and (2) did not err in declining to consider Child's views. View "Vieira v. De Souza" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed all but two of the district court's rulings in this dispute over the amount of attorneys' fees due to Plaintiff, the prevailing party in the underlying employment discrimination dispute, and vacated the attorneys' fees award, holding that the district court erred in part.Plaintiff, the former head of the appellate practice of the United States Attorney's Office for the District of Puerto Rico, alleging discrimination and retaliation under Title VII. The parties negotiated a settlement, under which Plaintiff received a lump-sum payment of $450,000 plus reasonable attorneys' fees. The district court awarded Plaintiff a total of $170,332 in attorneys' fees. The First Circuit affirmed all but two of the district court's rulings, which the court reversed, and vacated the fee award, holding (1) the district court erred in concluding that time expended in settlement negotiations and time expended in performing work that implicated other cases, distinct but related, must be categorically excluded from the fee award; and (2) Plaintiff's five remaining challenges were without merit. View "Perez-Sosa v. Garland" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed in part and vacated in part the holdings of the district court affirming the conclusions of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) approving the Maine Department of Transportation's (MDOT) plan to construct a modern bridge upstream of a current, historic bridge and to tear down the historic bridge when construction is finished, holding that the agency's decision was not arbitrary or capricious.Plaintiffs brought this action challenging the FHWA's decision to approve Maine's decision, seeking to review and set aside that approval. The district court considered and rejected several of Plaintiffs' arguments. The First Circuit affirmed all of the district court's holdings except one, holding (1) Plaintiffs' challenges to the cost estimates were without merit; and (2) the matter must be remanded to the FHWA for the limited purpose of allowing the agency to justify use of a service-life analysis. View "Historic Bridge Foundation v. Buttigieg" on Justia Law

The First Circuit held that a Maine statute requiring cable operators to grant subscribers pro rata credits or rebates for the days remaining in the billing period after the termination of cable service is not preempted by the Cable Communications Act of 1984 (Cable Act).The Cable Act preempts stat laws that regulate rates for the provision of cable service if the Federal Communications Commission determines that cable operators in that state are subject to effective competition. See 42 U.S.C. 543(a)(2), 556(c). In 2020, Maine, a state that has effective competition, adopted into law the statute at issue in this case, the Pro Rata Act. Plaintiffs filed suit requesting a declaratory judgment that the law was preempted by the Cable Act. The district court concluded that the Pro Rata Act was preempted by the Cable Act as a matter of law. The First Circuit reversed, holding that Maine's Pro Rata Act is not preempted by federal law because it is not a law governing rates for the provision of cable service and is, rather, a consumer protection law that is not preempted. View "Spectrum Northeast, LLC v. Frey" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the decision of the district court upholding Defendant National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburg, PA's denial of accidental death insurance benefits to Plaintiff following her husband's death because he had committed suicide, holding that the district court did not err.Plaintiff enrolled in an accidental death and dismemberment insurance policy, an employer-sponsored welfare plan affording participants like Plaintiff rights and protections under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1001 et seq. Plaintiff's husband was insured for a death benefit, with Plaintiff named as the beneficiary. After Plaintiff's husband fell nine stories from a hotel balcony and died, Plaintiff submitted a claim under the policy for accidental death benefits. Defendant denied benefits, concluding that Plaintiff's husband committed suicide, precluding benefits. Plaintiff filed suit under section 502(a)(1)(B) of ERISA seeking the benefits provided for under the policy. The district court granted summary judgment for Defendant. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that Defendant's denial of accidental death benefits was not arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion. View "Alexandre v. National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's sentences that he received at hearings conducted via videoconference during the COVID-19 pandemic, holding that all but one of Defendant's challenges were waived or otherwise without merit and that Defendant's remaining challenge was not ripe for review.Specifically, the First Circuit held (1) Defendant's arguments challenging the district court's procedure in conducting his revocation hearing were waived; (2) Defendant's revocation was both procedurally and substantively reasonable; (3) the trial court did not plainly err in conducting its Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(1)(N) inquiry; and (4) Defendant failed to establish error sufficiently grave to warrant setting aside his otherwise valid appeal waiver. View "United States v. Rodriguez-Monserrate" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the district court's entry of a preliminary injunction against Skinner Services, Inc., and four individuals (collectively, Skinner) to prevent Skinner's acceleration of efforts to insulate their individual and corporate assets to avoid a meaningful recovery for Plaintiffs in the underlying action, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion.Plaintiffs, former low-wage employees of Skinner Demolition, sued Skinner on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated workers for unpaid wages. The court entered a protective order to prohibit Skinner from retaliating against any workers who participated in or assisted in the litigation. Skinner was subsequently held in contempt for violating the protective order. In the meantime, Skinner created four separate entities, which Plaintiffs alleged were used to dissipate or hide assets. The district court granted Plaintiffs' ensuing motion for injunctive relief, finding that Skinner likely had violated state and federal wage laws and was trying to transfer assets from its laborers' reach. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court (1) had the authority to enter the preliminary injunction; and (2) did not abuse its discretion. View "Pineda v. Skinner Services, Inc." on Justia Law