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

The First Circuit denied Petitioner’s petition for review of the order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) upholding the immigration judge’s (IJ) denial of Petitioner’s application for both withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), holding that the BIA’s decision was supported by substantial evidence.Specifically, the BIA ruled that the only social group to which Petitioner claimed to belong was not a social group that was statutorily protected and that Petitioner was not entitled to protection under the CAT. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that Petitioner’s challenges to the BIA’s decision failed. View "Agustin v. Whitaker" on Justia Law

The First Circuit reversed the district court’s pretrial dismissal of four charges of violations of the National Firearms Act (NFA), 26 U.S.C. 5801 et seq. brought against Defendant, reinstated those counts, and remanded this case for further proceedings, holding that the result reached by the district court was contrary to the complete text and context of the NFA and not what Congress intended.The charges against Defendant arose from Defendant’s act of purchasing four military M67 fragmentation grenades from an FBI agent during an undercover sting operation. Before the sale, the FBI had replaced each grenade’s original, operable fuze with an inoperable one. The district court concluded that because the operable fuzes had been replaced with inoperable fuzes, the grenades were not “explosive grenades” under the NFA. The First Circuit reversed, holding that, based on the admitted facts, statutory context, and Congress’s intent in enacting the “explosive grenade” provision of the NFA, each grenade as purchased by Defendant was an “explosive grenade” under the NFA. View "United States v. Musso" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the decision of the district court denying SPAR Group, Inc.’s motion to compel arbitration in this case brought by Paradise Hogan against SPAR Business Services, Inc. (SBS) and SPAR, holding that SPAR could not compel Hogan to arbitrate because SPAR was not a party to the agreement containing the arbitration clause.SPAR, a retail services provider, obtained the majority of its personnel from SBS, a staffing company. After SBS engaged Hogan as an independent contractor and assigned him to perform services for SPAR, Hogan and SBS entered into an independent contractor master agreement that contained an arbitration clause. Hogan later sued SBS and SPAR, and both defendants sought to compel arbitration. The district court compelled arbitration as to Hogan’s claims against SBS but denied the motion to compel arbitration as to SPAR. SPAR appealed. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that there was no legal basis to compel Hogan to arbitration where the clear terms of the agreement showed that Hogan did not consent to arbitrate his claims against SPAR. View "Hogan v. SPAR Group, Inc." on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court rejecting Plaintiffs’ motion to set aside an earlier federal district court decision granting summary judgment in favor of Defendants on Plaintiffs’ claims seeking to recover lost benefits from their former employer, holding that the district court properly found that the judgment was not procured by “fraud on the court.”Plaintiffs claimed in their motion that various defendants made deliberate material misstatements in their answers and various sworn statements. The district court determined that the allegations did not warrant vacating the judgment. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that, even assuming the truth of Plaintiffs’ allegations, the allegations were not sufficient to constitute “fraud upon the court.” View "Torres v. Bella Vista Hospital, Inc." on Justia Law

The First Circuit vacated Defendant’s sentence and remanded this matter for resentencing, holding that no weight should be given in sentencing to arrests listed in the presentence report (PSR) that did not result in convictions or were not buttressed by independent proof of conduct.Defendant pleaded guilty to two counts of possessing a firearm while prohibited from doing so because of a prior felony conviction and his fugitive status. The district court imposed a variant sentence of seventy-two months. On appeal, Defendant challenged the judge’s possible reliance on arrests not resulting in convictions in his upward variance. The First Circuit vacated the sentence, holding that Defendant made a strong enough case that the sentencing judge relied on such arrests in determining his sentence and remand was required. View "United States v. Marrero-Perez" on Justia Law

The First Circuit denied Petitioner’s petition for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) reversing the order of an immigration judge (IJ) granting Petitioner cancellation of removal under the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act, holding that the “persecutor bar” - which disqualifies certain persons from immigration relief - does not require a showing that the alien shared the motive of the persecutors whom he assisted.Petitioner, a Salvadoran native and citizen, conceded that he stood guard for his superiors while they engaged in an act of persecution but argued that he acted without a personal motive to persecute. In granting Petitioner cancellation of removal, the IJ concluded that the persecutor bar did not apply to Petitioner because he lacked a motive to persecute. The BIA reversed, determining that the persecutor bar was applicable despite Petitioner’s lack of such a motive. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the persecutor bar does not require a showing that the applicant shared the motive of the persecutors whom he or she assisted. View "Alvarado v. Whitaker" on Justia Law

The First Circuit vacated Defendant’s sentence imposed in connection with his plea of guilty to possessing a firearm despite his status as a felon, holding that Defendant’s prior Puerto-Rico law conviction was not a “controlled substance offense” for federal-sentencing purposes.After concluding that Defendant’s prior Puerto-Rico law conviction amounted to a “controlled substance offense” under the guidelines, the court increased Defendant’s base offense level and sentenced him to thirty-four months in prison. The First Circuit vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing, holding that the government in this case failed to meet its burden of showing precisely what Defendant pled to with regard to his Puerto Rico drug offense, which required the Court to vacate his sentence and remand for resentencing. View "United States v. Martinez-Benitez" on Justia Law

The First Circuit denied Petitioner’s petition for review seeking to appeal an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying Petitioner’s motion to reopen his immigration proceedings as untimely, holding that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in rejecting Petitioner’s equitable tolling argument.Petitioner’s motion to reopen was filed outside the ninety-day limitations period set forth by statute and regulation. The BIA denied the motion to reopen as untimely. Specifically, the BIA found that Petitioner had not exercised the due diligence required by case law, and thus the ninety-day limitations period for filing such a motion could not be equitably tolled. The First Circuit affirmed the BIA’s denial of Petitioner’s motion to reopen, holding that, even assuming that equitable tolling could apply to motions to reopen, Petitioner failed to show that he acted with the diligence required to obtain such relief. View "Medina v. Whitaker" on Justia Law

The First Circuit vacated the district court’s order granting Appellants’ motion to intervene in an ongoing criminal trial but otherwise denying in substantial part Appellants’ motion to unseal requested information regarding the names and addresses of the jurors in the criminal case as soon as possible after the jury’s verdict, holding that precedent requires post-verdict disclosure of juror names and addresses.Appellants were the owners of WBUR, a public radio station in Boston, Massachusetts. A week before trial ended, WBUR filed its motion both to intervene in the criminal case and to obtain information disclosing, post-verdict, juror names and addresses. The district court issued an order allowing intervention but denying WBUR’s motion regarding the disclosure of juror names and addresses. The First Circuit held that In re Globe Newspaper Co., 920 F.2d 88 (1st Cir. 1990), holds that, absent a district court having made the requisite particularized findings to justify either nondisclosure or a delay in disclosure, juror addresses may not be withheld post-verdict and that the disclosure of the requested juror information may not be delayed until after sentencing. View "United States v. Chin" on Justia Law

The First Circuit reversed the convictions of Defendants Juan Bravo-Fernandez and Hector Martinez-Maldonado (Martinez) for federal program bribery, holding that the government did not meet its burden of establishing that the entity Martinez represented as an agent received at least $10,000 in federal “benefits” within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. 666.In this appeal, the third time this case was before the First Circuit, Defendants argued that evidence stipulated to early in the proceedings was insufficient to convict them of federal program bribery because the government did not introduce evidence sufficient to satisfy the jurisdictional element under section 666(b) that the government entity received “benefits in excess of $10,00 under a Federal program.” The First Circuit agreed, holding that the government failed to meet its burden of establishing that the entity Martinez represented as an agent received the amount of benefits required under section 666(b). View "United States v. Bravo-Fernandez" on Justia Law