Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

Minta del Carmen Rivera Barrientos suffered an attack at the hands of gang members in her native country of El Salvador. She escaped to the United States and sought asylum. She contended she was eligible for asylum under 8 U.S.C. 1158 because she faced past persecution on account of her political opinion (opposition to gangs) and her membership in a particular social group (young females) who have resisted gang recruitment. The BIA argued that the attack was not on account of her political opinion and that she was not a member of a cognizable social group. Because the Tenth Circuit concluded the BIAâs interpretation of the applicable statute was not unreasonable, the Court concluded the agency did not abuse its discretion in finding that Rivera-Barrientos was ineligible for asylum.

This case stemmed from plaintiff's detention as an undocumented immigrant where plaintiff claimed that various authorities deprived him of medication for his schizophrenia and that the detention resulted from the insufficient training of public defenders regarding the immigration consequences of criminal pleas. At issue was whether plaintiff properly exhausted his administrative remedies under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. 1346, 2671-80, where the federal agencies denied plaintiff's administrative tort claims before he amended his complaint in an ongoing civil action to name the United States as a party and allege a new cause of action under the FTCA. The court held that the claims were properly exhausted but affirmed the district court's dismissal on the alternative ground that plaintiff stated FTCA claims that fell outside the FTCA's waiver of sovereign immunity. The court also affirmed the grant of summary judgment on plaintiff's ineffective assistance of counsel claims, premised on 42 U.S.C. 1983 and Monell v. Department of Social Services.

Petitioner Vickers Waugh appealed a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) that ordered him removed from the United States. In August 2009, Petitioner pled guilty in Utah state court to one count of felonious sexual contact with a minor. Following his conviction, the government instituted removal proceedings. The immigration judge (IJ) found petitioner removable on two grounds: for sexual abuse of a minor and for child abuse. While Petitioner's proceedings were pending, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in "Padilla v. Kentucky," which held that a non-citizen defendant had a Sixth Amendment right to be advised of the risk of removal resulting from a guilty plea. Relying on that case, Petitioner unsuccessfully moved to terminate his removal proceedings. On appeal to the Tenth Circuit, Petitioner challenged the IJ and BIA's refusal to terminate the removal proceedings against him, arguing that his constitutional rights had been violated when no one advised him of the potential of removal when he pled guilty to the state felony charges. The Tenth Circuit found that "Petitioner attempt[ed] to frame his argument as a denial of due process . . . [i]t appears Petitioner's true objection, however, is to the way the IJ and BIA exercised their discretion. . . . This challenge raise[d] neither a constitutional nor a legal issue." The Court found it did not have jurisdiction to review his petition, and declined further review.

The Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America and various business and civil rights organizations (collectively, "Chamber") filed a federal preenforcement suit against those charged with administering the Legal Arizona Workers Act, Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. 23-211, 212, 212.01, which provided that the licenses of state employers that knowingly or intentionally employed unauthorized aliens could be, and in certain circumstances, must be, suspended or revoked. The law also required that all Arizona employers use E-Verify, an internet-based system employers could use to check the work authorization status of employees. At issue was whether federal immigration law preempted those provisions of Arizona law. The Court held that Arizona's licensing law fell within the confines of the authority Congress chose to leave to the states and therefore, was not expressly preempted where the Immigration Reform and Control Act ("IRCA"), 8 U.S.C. 1324a(h)(2), prohibited states from imposing civil or criminal sanctions on those who employed unauthorized aliens but preserved state authority to impose sanctions through licensing and similar laws. The court also held that Arizona's requirement that employers use E-Verify did not conflict with the federal scheme and in no way obstructed achieving the aims of the federal program.

Appellees filed suit asserting that their due process rights were violated when the Department of Homeland Security ("DHS") failed to make additional attempts at service after it had knowledge that the initial attempt at notice failed where the notice informed an obligor that an alien had been detained by DHS and that the obligor could post a cash bond to secure the alien's release. At issue was whether, in order to satisfy due process, the government must take additional reasonable steps to notify a bond obligor that the bond had been breached when the government had knowledge that the initial attempt at notice failed. The court affirmed summary judgment in favor of appellees and held that DHS violated the bond obligor's due process rights when it failed to take additional reasonable steps to notify the obligors of the bond demand after the initial notice was returned as undeliverable before it collected the bond.

Defendants, in consolidated appeals, appealed their convictions for violations of 8 U.S.C. 1325(a)(1) for attempting to travel by boat from Saipan in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands ("CNMI") to the Territory of Guam by boat. At issue was whether defendants violated section 1325(a)(1) for being aliens who knowingly and willingly attempted to enter the United States at a time and place other than as designated by immigration officers on or about January 5, 2010, a date within Title VII of the Consolidated Natural Resources Act of 2008's ("CNRA"), 48 U.S.C. 1806-1808, transition period. The court held that defendants did not violate section 1325(a)(1) by attempting to travel by boat from the CNMI to Guam where the CNMI and Guam were parts of the United States and an alien did not enter or attempt to enter the United States for purposes of section 1325(a)(1) when traveling from one part of the United States to another, even if when doing so they passed through international waters.

Appellant brought a suit under the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA"), 5 U.S.C. 500, seeking an injunction requiring the United States State Department ("State Department") to disclose the Hearing Officer's Findings of Fact and Recommendation when the Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Passport Services granted her children limited validity passports after a hearing. After the district court granted the State Department's motion to dismiss appellant's suit, she timely appealed the decision and then filed a second, separate complaint against the State Department alleging that the State Department's decision on the merits was arbitrary and capricious in violation of the APA. The State Department filed a second motion to dismiss which was pending. The court vacated the district court's grant of the State Department's motion to dismiss and instructed the district court to reevaluate appellant's claims upon consolidation of both her cases against the State Department.