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

The First Circuit denied Petitioner's petition for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying his motion to reopen proceedings under 8 U.S.C. 1229a(c)(7), holding that the BIA neither committed a material error of law nor acted arbitrarily, capriciously, or irrationally.Petitioner, a native and citizen of Guatemala, was charged as removable for being present in the United States without having been admitted. Petitioner conceded the charge and sought asylum. An immigration judge (IJ) denied the asylum application because Petitioner failed to establish that he was targeted based on a protected ground. The BIA affirmed. Petitioner subsequently filed an untimely motion to reopen, asserting that the applicable time limit should be equitably tolled due to ineffective assistance of counsel. The BIA denied the motion. The First Circuit denied Petitioner's petition for review, holding that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Petitioner's untimely motion to reopen and declining to equitably toll the deadline. View "Yoc Esteban v. Garland" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Petitioner's petition filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2255 seeking to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence, holding that the district court did not err or abuse its discretion in denying the petition.After Petitioner pleaded guilty to seven counts of being a felon in possession of ammunition and/or firearms in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1) the Supreme Court decided Rehaif v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2191 (2019), which held that to convict a defendant of violating section 922(g) the government must prove that the defendant knew that he or she had a relevant prohibited statute when committing the underlying offense. Thereafter, Petitioner brought this petition arguing that he would have proceeded to trial had he been told of the mens rea requirement. The district court denied the petition. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that Petitioner failed to carry his burden of establishing that it was reasonably probable that he would not have pleaded guilty but for the Rehaif error in this case. View "Guardado v. United States" on Justia Law

The First Circuit denied Petitioner's petition for judicial review of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision affirming the judgment of the immigration judge (IJ) rejecting Petitioner's application for deferral of removal under the United Nations Convention Against Torture (CAT), holding that the BIA's denial of CAT protection was supported by substantial evidence.After Petitioner, a Haitian national, pleaded guilty in a Massachusetts state court with carrying a firearm without a license the Department of Homeland Security initiated removal proceedings. An IJ denied Petitioner's application for deferral of removal under the CAT, and the BIA dismissed Petitioner's appeal. The First Circuit denied Petitioner's petition for judicial review, holding (1) the agency's finding that generalized danger and violence endemic in Haitian society will pose no particularized threat to Petitioner was supported by substantial evidence; (2) judicial venue was proper in the First Circuit; and (3) substantial evidence supported the agency's denial of CAT protection. View "Bazile v. Garland" on Justia Law

The First Circuit granted Petitioner's petition seeking to have her removal proceedings reopened and vacated the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals rejecting her motion to reopen her removal proceedings pursuant to the Board's sua sponte authority, holding that remand was required.At the age of nine, Petitioner entered the United States from El Salvador without inspection to join her mother, who entered without inspection four years earlier. An immigration judge found Petitioner deportable and granted her a five-month period of voluntary departure. The Board affirmed. Thereafter, Congress enacted the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act (NACARA), Pub. L. No. 105-100. Petitioner later sought to have her removal proceedings reopened so that her request for suspension of deportation could be adjudicated according to the substantive NACARA standards. The Board ruled that it lacked jurisdiction to reopen the proceeding after construing Petitioner's filing as a motion seeking relief under NACARA. The First Circuit granted relief, holding (1) there is no reason why NACARA should not be read as implicitly divesting the Board of its discretion to sua sponte reopen a proceeding; and (2) Petitioner's petition was not time barred. View "Mancia v. Garland" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court sentencing Defendant to twenty-four months above the mandatory minimum of sixty months in an 18 U.S.C. 924(c) count arising from a carjacking, holding that the sentence was neither procedurally nor substantively unreasonable.Defendant entered into a plea agreement with the government in which he pled guilty to two carjackings and the offense of using and carrying a firearm in relation to the carjacking. The parties recommended a sentence of 123 months' imprisonment. The district court sentenced Defendant to a total of 162 months. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) Defendant's procedural reasonableness claim failed; and (2) Defendant's sentence was substantively reasonable, and therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion. View "United States v. Santiago-Lozada" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court against Plaintiffs on their action brought against BMW of North America, LLC claiming that a fire that occurred in their garage was the result of a manufacturing or design defect in their 2016 BMW X5 hybrid vehicle, holding that the district court properly concluded that Plaintiffs could not satisfy their burden of proof at trial.Plaintiffs had parked their hybrid BMW vehicle in their garage and were charging it using an extension cord when a fire occurred. Plaintiffs brought this lawsuit claiming that the fire was the result of a manufacturing or design defect in their BMW. Plaintiffs, however, failed to present an expert to support their theory. The district court granted judgment for Defendants. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that, absent expert support for the theory that Plaintiffs presented below, there was no basis for inferring that the accident was caused by a defective product. View "Molinary-Fernandez v. BMW of North America, LLC" on Justia Law

The First Circuit denied Petitioners' petition objecting to a permit issued by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and affirmed by the Environmental Appeals Board requiring General Electric Company (GE) to clean up polychlorinated biphenyls from certain portions of the Housatonic River, holding that the EPA's challenged actions were not arbitrary or capricious.On appeal, Petitioners brought three substantive challenges and also brought procedural challenges to the permit's issuance. The First Circuit denied the petition after noting that should GE's cleanup of the river not achieve the goals set out in the permit, the permit requires further measures, holding that Petitioners were not entitled to relief on their procedural and substantive legal challenges. View "Housatonic River Initiative v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court dismissing this lawsuit against the Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico (FOMB) and its executive director challenging the FOMB's alleged failure to review a sale agreement on untimeliness grounds, holding that the dismissal was proper, albeit on standing grounds.Appellants - several Puerto Rico corporations and individuals - brought this action claiming that the FOMB's alleged failure to review a $384 million loan sale agreement between the Economic Development Bank for Puerto Rico (BDE) and a private investment company violated their constitutional rights under the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses, and a statutory violation under the Puerto Rico Oversight, Management, and Economic Stability act . The district court granted the FOMB's motion to dismiss, concluding that the claims were time-barred. The First Circuit affirmed but on different grounds, holding that Appellants lacked standing because their complaint failed to allege that the FOMB's inaction caused their claimed injury. View "R&D Master Enterprises, Inc. v. Financial Oversight & Management Bd. for P.R." on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the order of the district court granting summary judgment in favor of the United States in this civil action brought by Gabiel Lozada-Manzano and his parents against the government under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. 1346(b)(1), alleging, among other claims, malicious prosecution, holding that there was no error.In 2013, a federal grand jury indicted Lozada-Manzano on charges of carjacking and use of a firearm during a crime of violence arising from a home invasion. When evidence later surfaced suggesting that Lozada-Manzano had been in policy custody at the time of the incident the prosecution successfully moved to dismiss the charges. Plaintiffs subsequently brought this action. The district court granted summary judgment for the government. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) Lozada-Manzano failed to raise a triable issue as to malice under Puerto Rico law on his malicious prosecution claim; and (2) Lozada-Manzano was not entitled to relief on his remaining allegations of error. View "Lozada-Manzano v. United States" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the two district court rulings at issue in this case, one granting Defendant compassionate release from incarceration and the other denying the government's ensuing request for reconsideration, holding that there was no error.In 2020, Defendant motioned the court for compassionate release under the First Step Act, 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(1)(A), arguing that his heightened health risks associated with the COVID-19 virus constituted an extraordinary and compelling reason to release him from prison. The district court granted the motion. The government moved to reconsider, arguing that because Defendant had been vaccinated, the release was not warranted. The district court denied the motion. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) this Court had jurisdiction over the government's compassionate release appeal; (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion or err in its compassionate release decision; and (3) there was no error in the court's conclusion that Defendant's release was appropriate in light of the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) sentencing factors. View "United States v. Rivera-Rodriguez" on Justia Law