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

The First Circuit denied the petition for judicial review sought by Petitioner in this case and upheld the order of removal against him, holding that the Agency's denial of asylum and other relief was supported by substantial evidence in the record.Petitioner conceded removability and cross-appleid for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. An immigration judge (IJ) denied Petitioner's application for relief and ordered him removed to Rwanda. The Board of Immigration Appeals upheld the IJ's decision, ruling that the IJ's adverse credibility determination was not clearly erroneous. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the denial of Petitioner's claim for asylum was supported by substantial evidence, ending this Court's inquiry. View "Mashilingi v. Garland" on Justia Law

The First Circuit vacated the federal convictions challenged on appeal by the two defendants in this case - Noel de Leon-De la Rosa and Juan Batista Johnson-Debel - holding that vacatur was required of Defendants' challenged convictions for different reasons.Defendants were both convicted of destruction of a controlleded substance while on a vessel and conspiracy to destroy a controlled substance while on a vessel (counts five and six). The First Circuit vacated Defendants' of counts five and six, holding (1) the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions; (2) the admission of Johnson's statement in the defendants' joint trial violated De Leon's rights under the Confrontation Clause to the Federal Constitution; and (3) as to Johnson's convictions, the district court constructively amended the indictment through its instructions to the jury. View "United States v. De Leon-De la Rosa" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the outcome relating to litigation concerning a loan agreement in the District of Puerto Rico in which the district court granted summary judgment to Plaintiff on its Puerto Rico law claims and dismissed Defendant's Puerto Rico law counterclaims for failure to state a claim, holding that there was no error or abuse of discretion.Specifically, the First Circuit held (1) this Court had appellate jurisdiction to hear this case under 28 U.S.C. 1291, and there was no other jurisdictional hurdle as to this appeal; (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Defendant's motion for jurisdictional discovery; and (3) the district court did not err in dismissing one of Defendant's counterclaims. View "Bautista Cayman Asset Co. v. Asociacion De Miembros De La Policía De Puerto Rico" on Justia Law

The First Circuit reversed the judgment of the district court denying Defendant's motion to vacate her federal conviction and sentence on the grounds that her appellate counsel was constitutionally ineffective under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), for failing to raise a claim on direct appeal under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), holding that the district court erred.Defendant and her co-defendants were convicted of various drug-trafficking offenses. In their direct appeals, Defendant's co-defendants successfully argued that the government's failure to produce several clearly relevant documents that plainly called into question the credibility of the government's key witnesses against Defendant and her co-defendants violated their due process rights under Brady. The First Circuit vacated the co-defendants' convictions and remanded for a new trial. Because Defendant did not raise the Brady violation on her simultaneous appeal, she was denied relief. Thereafter, Defendant brought this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2255. The First Circuit reversed, holding (1) Defendant established prejudice under Strickland; and (2) the failure to raise the Brady claim was the result of deficient performance by appellate counsel. View "Flores-Rivera v. United States" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court approving an amended settlement agreement in this landmark Title IX case brought by a group of women student-athletes against Brown University claiming gender discrimination with respect to the funding and operation of a variety of varsity athletic programs, holding that there was no error.After a bench trial, the district court found that Brown had violated Title IX. After the First Circuit remanded the case for further proceedings, the parties consummated a settlement, which remained in effect for more than two decades. In 2020, Brown unilaterally decided to eliminate certain varsity sports and to upgrade sailing to varsity status, open to men and women. The parties then revisited the matters embodied in the court-approved settlement and jointly moved for approval of a revised settlement. The district court approved the amended settlement agreement. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court properly concluded that the amended settlement agreement was fair and adequate. View "Cohen v. Walsh" on Justia Law

The Retirement System administers a pension plan for more than 12,000 retired Puerto Rican Electric Power Authority (PREPA) employees. Under the System's Bylaws, three trustees are selected by PREPA employees, three trustees are selected by PREPA's Board of Directors, one trustee is elected by retired PREPA employees, and one serves dually as a trustee and as PREPA’s Executive Director.The Fiscal Oversight and Management Board (FOMB) was created by the Puerto Rico Oversight, Management, and Economic Stability Act (PROMESA), 48 U.S.C. 2161, and designated PREPA as a covered entity. A 2018 Executive Order treated the Retirement System as a covered entity subject to FOMB’s oversight. The Order asserted that the System’s Trustees had "not complied with the annual obligation imposed by [PREPA's] Bylaws," and appointed PREPA's Board of Directors as trustee for the Retirement System for two purposes: finalizing the System's 2017 actuarial reports and financial statements and delivering information to the Puerto Rico Fiscal Agency and Financial Advisory Authority related to PREPA's 2019 budget. The Order would no longer be effective upon the System's issuance of the actuarial reports, FOMB's certification of a revised PREPA fiscal plan, and FOMB's certification of PREPA's 2019 budget.After a suit was filed, challenging that Order, a 2019 Executive Order formally withdrew the 2018 Order. The First Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the suit. The request for declaratory relief did not present a controversy of sufficient reality or immediacy to establish subject matter jurisdiction under the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. 2201. View "Rivera-Rivera v. Puerto Rican Electric Power Authority" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Defendant's motion for a mental competency examination and motion to withdraw his plea and then sentencing him for his offenses, holding that there was no error.Defendant pleaded guilty to to two armed carjackings, armed robbery, and using and carrying a firearm in connection with a carjacking. More than three months after Defendant entered his plea a sentencing hearing was held. At the hearing, Defendant requested a mental competency examination and moved to withdraw his plea pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 on the grounds that he was confused at the change-of-plea hearing and felt pressure to plead as a result. The district court denied both motions and then sentenced Defendant a term nine months above the sentencing guidelines range. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court (1) did not err when it denied Defendant's motion for a determination of mental competency and motion to withdraw his plea; and (2) pronounced a sentence that was substantively reasonable. View "United States v. Ramos-David" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Appellant's motion to dismiss the criminal proceedings against him, holding that Appellant was statutorily barred under 8 U.S.C. 1326(d) from bringing a collateral attack in his criminal proceeding.Defendant was charged with violating 8 U.S.C. 1326, which makes it a felony to unlawfully enter the United States while an order of removal is outstanding. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the indictment against him, arguing that the government may not use his prior removal order to prove the "outstanding order of removal" element of the crime. Defendant thus sought to dismiss his indictment based on a due process-based collateral attack on the order of removal, arguing that the entry of the order was fundamentally unfair. The district court denied the motion. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) Defendant's first argument had already been rejected by this Court since the district's ruling; and (2) because the removal proceeding was not fundamentally unfair Defendant did not satisfy the conditions under 8 U.S.C. 1326(d) that would permit him to collaterally attack his prior removal. View "United States v. Castillo-Martinez" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the rulings of the district court denying the Commission of the New Hampshire Department of Health and Human Services' motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' complaints against her, holding that Plaintiffs' allegations of error were without merit.Plaintiffs were (1) a class of individuals who claimed to have been held against their will without due process on the basis of a certification of their need for emergency mental health treatment, and (2) a group of hospitals who claimed to have been forced to retain persons certified to be in need of such treatment. The Commissioner moved to dismiss the claims based on Eleventh Amendment immunity and Plaintiffs' asserted lack of standing. The district court denied the motion to dismiss. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that there was no merit to the Commissioner's challenges to the district court's standing and Eleventh Amendment immunity rulings. View "Doe v. Shibinette" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the ruling of the district court that there was no per se constitutional entitlement to a bond hearing after six months of detention and otherwise vacated the district court's declaratory and injunctive relief, holding that it was advisory.Petitioners brought this class action on behalf of noncitizen detainees held without possibility of release pending the completion of their removal proceedings. On remand, Petitioners alleged that mandatory detention of the class members under 8 U.S.C. 1226(c) for more than six months violated the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause or the Eighth Amendment excessive Bail Clause. The district court ruled that there was no per se constitutional entitlement to a bond hearing after six months of detention but that the length of time that might constitutionally pass without a bond hearing turned on each noncitizen's individual circumstances. The court then issued declaratory and injunctive relief in favor of all class members. The First Circuit held (1) the district court properly rejected the claim that persons detained for six months under section 1226(c) are automatically entitled to a bond hearing; and (2) the district court improperly granted binding equitable relief. View "Reid v. Donelan" on Justia Law