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

The First Circuit denied Petitioner's petition for judicial review seeking to set aside the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming the denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and other relief, holding that the BIA's decision must be upheld.On appeal, Petitioner's principal assignment of error challenged the denial of his asylum claim. Petitioner specifically argued against the adverse credibility determination of the immigration judge (IJ), which the BIA upheld. The First Circuit denied the petition for review, holding (1) the IJ's adverse credibility determination was supported by substantial evidence in the record, and therefore, the BIA's denial of Petitioner's asylum claim must be upheld; (2) because Petitioner failed to satisfy the standard required for asylum, his claim for withholding of removal necessarily failed; and (3) Petitioner's claim for CAT protection is deemed abandoned. View "Zaruma-Guaman v. Wilkinson" on Justia Law

In this civil action brought by plaintiffs seeking to enjoin policies governing searches of electronic devices at the United States' borders, the First Circuit found no violations of either the Fourth Amendment or the First Amendment.The border search policies challenged her allow border agents to perform basic searches of electronic devices without reasonable suspicion and advanced searches with reasonable suspicion. The First Circuit joined the Eleventh Circuit in holding that advanced searches of electronic devices at the border do not require a warrant or probable cause and joined the Ninth and Eleventh Circuits in holding that basic border searches of electronic devices are routine searches that may be performed without reasonable suspicion. The Court then affirmed in part, reversed in part and vacated in part the judgment of the district court, holding that the court erred in narrowing the scope of permissible searches of electronic devices at the border. View "Alasaad v. Wolf" on Justia Law

In these three consolidated appeals arising out of the Title III debt-restructuring proceedings brought by the Financial Oversight and Management Board (Board) for Puerto Rico on behalf of the Puerto Rico Sales Tax Financing Corporation (COFINA) under the Puerto Rico Oversight, Management, and Economic Stability Act (PROMESA) the First Circuit held that certain appeals were equitably moot and another claim was properly dismissed.The Title III court approved a plan of adjustment (the Plan) proposed by the Board resolving disputes between the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and COFINA and between the junior and senior holders of COFINA's outstanding debt. The Elliott and Pinto-Lugo groups objected to the Plan, arguing, among other things, that it unlawfully abrogated their rights as junior COFINA bondholders. Peter Hein, an individual creditor, challenged the dismissal of his proof of claim against COFINA. The Title III court dismissed Hein's challenges and overruled the objections to the Plan. On Appeal, the First Circuit (1) dismissed the Elliott and Pinto-Lugo appeals as equitably moot; and (2) affirmed the dismissal of Hein's claims against COFINA. View "Pinto Lugo v. Commonwealth of Puerto Rico" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court upholding the jury verdict awarding Plaintiff compensatory on his claims of failure to accommodate his disability at work but remitting the jury's punitive damages award, holding that Defendants' claims on appeal failed.Specifically, the First Circuit held (1) the district court did not err in denying Defendants' post-trial motions for judgment as a matter of law because Plaintiff sufficiently proved his case under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. 12101, and Maine Human Rights Act (MHRA), Me. Stat. tit. 5, 4571; (2) the district court's rulings denying Defendants' motion for a new trial were not an abuse of discretion; and (3) the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Defendants' motion for remittitur because Defendants' arguments in support of the motion were misplaced and unsupported by the record. View "Burnett v. Ocean Properties, Ltd." on Justia Law

The First Circuit granted Petitioner's petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' (BIA) denial of his motion to reopen his removal proceedings and to remand to the immigration judge (IJ) for further consideration, holding that the BIA abused its discretion.Petitioner sought reconsideration due to the fact that he had been placed on a waiting list by the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) for a U-1 nonimmigrant visa pursuant to the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act (VTVPA), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(U). In denying Petitioner's motion to reopen his removal proceedings, the BIA gave two reasons for its denial. The First Circuit reversed and remanded the case, holding that the BIA abused its discretion because it failed to render a reasoned decision that accords with its own precedent and policies and failed to consider the position of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement. View "Benitez v. Wilkinson" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the order of the district court granting summary judgment to the government on all of Plaintiff's claims, holding that summary judgment was properly granted on Plaintiff's sex discrimination and retaliation claims.Plaintiff, an employee of the Drug Enforcement Agency, brought this action claiming that she had been discriminated against because of her national origin, disability, and sex and that she had been subjected to illegal retaliation. The district court granted summary judgment to the government on all claims. Plaintiff appealed, challenging the judgment as to her sex discrimination and retaliation claims. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that Plaintiff's sex discrimination and retaliation claims could not survive summary judgment. View "Hernandez v. Wilkinson" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court convicting Defendant of committing, or aiding and abetting others in committing, the crimes of RICO conspiracy, drug conspiracy, and other crimes, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on his allegations of error.After Defendant was originally convicted the First Circuit vacated the convictions, concluding that the police lacked probable cause to search Defendant's house, and therefore, the seized evidence should have been suppressed. On remand, a jury again convicted Defendant of the relevant charges. Defendant appealed, claiming trial error and sentencing issues. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) Defendant's claims of trial error were without merit; (2) there was sufficient evidence to support the convictions; (3) the trial court did not err in instructing the jury; (4) there was no abuse of discretion in the denial of Defendant's motion for a new trial; and (5) Defendant's sentence was not procedurally unreasonable. View "United States v. Cruz-Ramos" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's conviction for two counts of drug trafficking in international waters while aboard a stateless vessel in violation of the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act (MDLEA), 46 U.S.C. 70501-08, holding that international law does not generally prohibit the United States from prosecuting drug traffickers found on a stateless vessel stopped and boarded by the United States on the high seas as if the drug traffickers had been found on a United States vessel subject to the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.Specifically, the First Circuit held (1) Defendant's prosecution in the United States for drug trafficking on a stateless vessel stopped and boarded by the United States in waters subject to the rights of navigation on the high seas violated no recognized principle of international law; but (2) because Amendment 794 to the Sentencing Guidelines applies retroactively, this case must be remanded for resentencing so that the district court can have an opportunity to apply the new factors. View "United States v. Aybar-Ulloa" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the order of the district court granting summary judgment in favor of the City of Boston and the Commissioner of Boston's Property Management Department (collectively, the City) as to Plaintiffs' complaint that the City violated their constitutional rights by refusing to fly a Christian flag from a flagpole at Boston City Hall, holding that Plaintiffs' constitutional claims failed.Specifically, the First Circuit held (1) Plaintiffs' argument that the City's permitting process for the raising of third-party flags vests in government officials unbridled discretion to approve and deny protected speech and thus imposes an unconstitutional prior restraint on speech was foreclosed by the government speech doctrine; and (2) Plaintiffs' remaining claims under the Establishment Clause and the Equal Protection Clause were without merit. View "Shurtleff v. City of Boston" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Defendant's motion for judgment as a matter of law and for a new trial in this civil enforcement action brought by the Securities and Exchange Commission, holding that the evidence was sufficient to support the verdict.At issue was whether Defendant, the CFO of AVEO Pharmaceuticals, knowingly misled investors by the manner in which he responded to investor inquiries about the substance of AVEO's discussions with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) about the results of AVEO's clinical trial for tivozanib, a kidney cancer drug candidate. A jury found against Defendant. On appeal, Defendant argued (1) he was entitled to judgment as a matter of law because he had no duty to disclose the substance of the FDA discussions and because the evidence of scienter was insufficient, and (2) he was entitled to a new trial because the district court improperly instructed the jury. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) the evidence of fraud and scienter was sufficient to support the verdict; and (2) the challenged instructions were not given in error. View "Securities & Exchange Commission v. Johnston" on Justia Law