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

The petitioner, a Guatemalan national, entered the United States on a tourist visa in January 2000 and overstayed. In April 2018, he applied for asylum, citing his dangerous job as a bodyguard for a congressman in Guatemala and fear of extortion and threats from gang members. Removal proceedings were initiated against him, and he conceded removability but cross-applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). His application mentioned only one entry into the U.S. and claimed ignorance of the one-year filing requirement for asylum.An Immigration Judge (IJ) held a hearing in December 2018, where the petitioner testified about his fears of returning to Guatemala. The IJ found the petitioner not credible due to inconsistencies between his oral testimony and written application, such as unlisted entries into the U.S. and unmentioned incidents of threats. The IJ also noted the petitioner's use of false documentation and legal violations in the U.S. The IJ found no extraordinary circumstances to excuse the late asylum application and determined that the petitioner had not suffered past persecution or established a well-founded fear of future persecution. The IJ also found insufficient evidence for CAT protection.The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed the IJ's decision in September 2023, agreeing that the petitioner had not demonstrated past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution. The BIA noted the lack of evidence of threats in the past twenty years and upheld the IJ's findings on withholding of removal and CAT protection.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case and upheld the BIA's decision. The court found substantial evidence supporting the adverse credibility determination and agreed that the petitioner had not established eligibility for asylum, withholding of removal, or CAT protection. The petition for judicial review was denied. View "Garcia Oliva v. Garland" on Justia Law

The Government of Puerto Rico sued several pharmaceutical benefit managers (PBMs) and pharmaceutical manufacturers in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico Court of First Instance. The Commonwealth alleged that the PBMs, including Express Scripts and Caremark, schemed to unlawfully inflate insulin prices through rebate negotiations and price setting. The PBMs removed the case to federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1), arguing that they acted under federal authority in negotiating rebates and setting drug prices, and that the lawsuit related to their federal service.The United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico remanded the case back to the Court of First Instance. The district court found that the Commonwealth's disclaimer, which stated that it was not seeking relief related to any federal program or contract, effectively excluded any claims upon which the PBMs could base removal under § 1442(a)(1). The district court concluded that the PBMs could not claim they acted under federal authority for their non-federal PBM services and that dividing the work done for federal and non-federal clients was possible.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reversed the district court's decision. The appellate court held that the disclaimer did not prevent removal because Caremark's rebate negotiations for federal and non-federal clients were indivisible. The court found that Caremark acted under federal authority when negotiating rebates for FEHBA plans and possessed a colorable federal defense under FEHBA's express preemption provision. The court concluded that the disclaimer did not eliminate the possibility that the Commonwealth would recover for Caremark's official acts, thus justifying removal under § 1442(a)(1). The case was remanded to the district court with instructions to return it to federal court. View "Government of Puerto Rico v. Express Scripts, Inc." on Justia Law

Luis Efrain Vargas-Salazar, his wife Wilma Jeaneth Vargas-Lasso, and their son Maykel Eliab Vargas-Vargas, natives of Ecuador, sought review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) order affirming the Immigration Judge's (IJ) denial of their applications for asylum. Vargas-Salazar also contested the denial of his application for withholding of removal. The family entered the United States without inspection in June 2021 and conceded removability. Vargas-Salazar filed for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), naming his wife and son as derivative beneficiaries.The IJ held a hearing and found Vargas-Salazar's testimony credible. He testified about extortion attempts by a gang in Ecuador, which included threats and a physical altercation resulting in a head injury. The IJ concluded that the harm Vargas-Salazar suffered did not rise to the level of past persecution and that there was no sufficient nexus between the harm and a protected ground. The IJ also denied the application for withholding of removal and CAT protection, finding no evidence of likely future torture by government officials.The BIA affirmed the IJ's decision, agreeing that the harm Vargas-Salazar experienced did not constitute persecution and that the threats were not severe enough to cause significant suffering. The BIA also upheld the IJ's finding that there was no nexus between the harm and a protected ground. The BIA noted that the petitioner's CAT claim was waived as it was not raised on appeal.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case and applied the substantial evidence standard to the IJ's factual findings. The court found that substantial evidence supported the IJ and BIA's conclusions that the harm did not amount to past persecution and that there was no well-founded fear of future persecution on a protected ground. Consequently, the court denied the petition for review. View "Vargas-Salazar v. Garland" on Justia Law

Jose Mauricio Figueroa, a native and citizen of El Salvador, sought special rule cancellation of removal under the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act (NACARA). The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) initiated removal proceedings against him in 2007. In 2018, Figueroa appeared before an immigration judge (IJ) to request relief, arguing that his removal would cause "exceptional and extremely unusual hardship" to himself or his spouse, Maria. Figueroa and DHS agreed that a heightened NACARA standard applied due to his criminal history, requiring him to show continuous physical presence in the U.S. for ten years, good moral character, and the specified hardship.The IJ found that Figueroa had lived in the U.S. for thirty years, worked, and managed finances for two properties he and Maria owned. Despite acknowledging the emotional and economic hardship Maria would face, the IJ concluded that Figueroa did not meet the burden of proving exceptional and extremely unusual hardship. The IJ also noted Figueroa's health issues but found no credible evidence that he would be unable to obtain medical care or employment in El Salvador. Additionally, the IJ determined that Figueroa did not merit a favorable exercise of discretion due to his repeated arrests for indecent assault and battery.The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissed Figueroa's appeal, agreeing with the IJ's application of the hardship standard. The BIA found that Figueroa had not proven that he and Maria would be unable to secure employment or meet their basic needs in El Salvador. The BIA also noted that general crime conditions in El Salvador did not meet the exceptional and extremely unusual hardship standard.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the application of the hardship standard to the established facts was reviewable as a mixed question of law and fact. The court found no error in the agency's conclusion that Figueroa failed to establish the requisite hardship to himself or Maria. The petition for review was denied. View "Figueroa v. Garland" on Justia Law

Four noncitizens from India, who have been lawfully residing in the U.S. for over ten years, filed for permanent residency more than four years ago. Their applications have not been adjudicated, prompting them to sue the Director of USCIS and the Secretary of DOS under the APA for unreasonable delay and unlawful withholding of agency action. They argue that USCIS's policy of not adjudicating applications until a visa is "immediately available" violates 8 U.S.C. § 1255(a).The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts dismissed the claims under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and 12(b)(1). The court found that the plaintiffs' interpretation of § 1255(a) was incorrect and that the agencies' policies were within their discretion. The court ruled that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim for unreasonable delay and unlawful withholding under the APA.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the District Court's dismissal. The appellate court held that § 1255(a) sets eligibility criteria for applying for adjustment of status but does not mandate the timing of adjudication. The court found that the 1976 amendment to § 1255(a) did not preclude USCIS from considering visa availability at the time of approval. The court also rejected the plaintiffs' structural arguments based on other statutory provisions, finding no conflict with USCIS's policy. The court concluded that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim under the APA against both USCIS and DOS. View "Patel v. Jaddou" on Justia Law

The case involves Lucas Sirois and Alisa Sirois, who were indicted for conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute marijuana under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). They sought to enjoin the Department of Justice (DOJ) from prosecuting them, arguing that their conduct was in substantial compliance with the Maine Medical Use of Cannabis Act, which allows for the use, distribution, possession, and cultivation of medical marijuana under state law. The defendants claimed that the DOJ's prosecution violated the Rohrabacher-Farr Amendment, which prohibits the DOJ from using funds to prevent states from implementing their medical marijuana laws.The United States District Court for the District of Maine denied the defendants' request for injunctive relief. The court held a hearing where the government presented evidence that the defendants' operations, particularly a grow operation known as the "Shoe Shop," violated Maine's medical marijuana laws by operating as a collective and engaging in black-market sales. The court found that the government had met its burden of production, showing a substantial evidentiary basis for the prosecution. However, the defendants failed to meet their burden of persuasion to demonstrate that the prosecution lacked a substantial evidentiary basis or was arbitrary or irrational.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the District Court's decision. The appellate court held that the defendants did not show by a preponderance of the evidence that they were in substantial compliance with Maine's medical marijuana laws. The court noted significant evidence that the Shoe Shop operated as a collective and that Lucas Sirois engaged in black-market sales. The court concluded that the defendants failed to demonstrate that the DOJ's prosecution would prevent Maine from giving practical effect to its medical marijuana laws, as required under the Rohrabacher-Farr Amendment. Therefore, the denial of the motion to enjoin the prosecution was affirmed. View "United States v. Sirois" on Justia Law

In this case, the defendants, Aurea Vázquez Rijos, Marcia Vázquez Rijos, and José Ferrer Sosa, were involved in a murder-for-hire plot that resulted in the death of Adam Anhang Uster in Old San Juan, Puerto Rico, in 2005. Adam, a Canadian entrepreneur, was attacked and killed by a man hired by the defendants while walking with his wife, Aurea. The motive was financial gain from a prenuptial agreement that favored Aurea significantly more in the event of Adam's death than in the case of a divorce.The United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico tried the defendants. A federal jury convicted Aurea of murder for hire and all three defendants of conspiring to commit murder for hire. Each received a life sentence. The defendants appealed, raising numerous issues related to the trial, sentencing, and post-trial phases.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. The court addressed various claims, including the sufficiency of the evidence, the denial of severance, the admission of certain evidence, judicial bias, and the handling of post-trial motions related to the mental health of a key witness, Alex Pabón Colon. The court found that the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to support the convictions and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in its rulings on severance, evidentiary matters, and judicial conduct.The court also examined the defendants' claims regarding the mental health of Pabón, who testified that he was hired by the defendants to kill Adam. The court concluded that the district court did not err in its handling of Pabón's competency and the related post-trial motions. The court affirmed the district court's decisions across the board, upholding the convictions and sentences of the defendants. View "United States v. Vazquez-Rijos" on Justia Law

Salvadoran nationals Julio Alvarado-Reyes, his wife Glenda Garmendia-Ardona, and their minor son J.A.G. fled to the United States after being threatened by the MS-13 gang. Alvarado-Reyes was repeatedly stopped by gang members who demanded he use his truck for their activities, threatening his family when he refused. Garmendia-Ardona also received threatening calls. Fearing for their lives, they did not report to the police and eventually left El Salvador in August 2021. The Department of Homeland Security initiated removal proceedings against them in November 2021.An Immigration Judge (IJ) denied their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The IJ found that the harm Alvarado-Reyes experienced did not amount to persecution and that his proposed particular social group (PSG) of "Salvadoran men who resist gang recruitment" was not legally cognizable. The IJ also determined that the harm was not on account of his membership in the "Reyes family" or "Salvadoran men" PSGs. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed the IJ's decision without opinion, making the IJ's decision the final agency decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. The court upheld the IJ's findings, agreeing that the proposed PSG of "Salvadoran men who resist gang recruitment" lacked particularity and that there was no sufficient nexus between the harm and Alvarado-Reyes' membership in the "Reyes family" or "Salvadoran men" PSGs. The court also found that the BIA's affirmance without opinion was a valid exercise of discretion. Consequently, the petition for review was denied. View "Alvarado-Reyes v. Garland" on Justia Law

A priest residing in the rectory of St. Mary's Catholic Church in Providence, Rhode Island, was found to have over 12,000 images and 1,300 videos of child pornography on his laptop and external hard drive. The government obtained a search warrant for the rectory, which led to the seizure of these devices. Subsequently, a federal grand jury charged the priest with receipt and possession of child pornography. The priest entered a conditional guilty plea, reserving the right to appeal the district court's denial of his motion to suppress the evidence obtained from the search.The United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island denied the motion to suppress, finding that the rectory was best characterized as a single-family residence, thus validating the warrant's description. The court also held that even if the warrant lacked sufficient particularity, the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule would apply, as the officers reasonably relied on the warrant.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court concluded that the warrant was sufficiently particular regarding the premises and the items to be seized. Even if it were not, the good-faith exception applied because the officers acted reasonably based on the detailed affidavit provided by Detective Evans. The court also noted that the appellant waived his right to appeal the denial of his motion for reconsideration by not reserving it in his conditional plea agreement. Thus, the judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "US v. Jackson" on Justia Law

Brian Watson was convicted in 2017 by a jury for the felony sale of a controlled drug (fentanyl) resulting in death. The prosecution's evidence included testimony from Dr. Daniel Isenschmid, a forensic toxicologist, who discussed toxicology tests conducted by his colleagues, revealing fentanyl and its metabolites in the victim's blood. Watson appealed, arguing that the trial court erred by allowing Dr. Isenschmid to testify about tests he did not perform. The New Hampshire Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, finding that Dr. Isenschmid's involvement in the case was sufficient to satisfy the Confrontation Clause.Watson then filed a habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in the United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire, claiming that his Confrontation Clause rights were violated by Dr. Isenschmid's testimony. The warden moved for summary judgment, which the district court granted, concluding that the state court's decision was neither contrary to nor an unreasonable application of Supreme Court precedent.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case and upheld the district court's decision. The court found that Watson did not provide clear and convincing evidence to show that the state court's factual findings were incorrect. The court also determined that the state court's decision was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law. The First Circuit noted that Dr. Isenschmid had personally reviewed all relevant documentation, data, and test results, and had issued and signed the toxicology report, making his testimony permissible under the Confrontation Clause. The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the warden. View "Watson v. Edmark" on Justia Law