Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

Petitioner, a native and citizen of the Dominican Republic, was physically removed from the United States to the Dominican Republic in 2002 after he received two state convictions with immigration consequences. In 2006, Petitioner entered the United States without inspection or admission. Petitioner subsequently filed an untimely motion with the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) to reopen his proceedings. The BIA denied the motion to reopen. In 2008, Petitioner filed an untimely motion to reconsider the BIA’s decision. The BIA decided to sua sponte reopen the proceedings in 2008 and remanded the record back to the Immigration Judge (IJ). The IJ denied relief and ordered Petitioner’s deportation. Petitioner appealed. In 2012, the BIA determined that its 2008 order sua sponte reopening proceedings was issued in error and ultimately denied Petitioner’s 2008 motion to reconsider. Petitioner petitioned for review of the BIA’s 1012 order effectively denying sua sponte reopening proceedings. The First Circuit dismissed the petition for judicial review, holding that it lacked jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision to deny reopening removal proceedings sua sponte. View "Guerrero v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a Somalian national, was charged with removability as an alien present without having been admitted or paroled after inspection. Petitioner filed a second application, the first of which was deemed abandoned, requesting asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the United Nations Convention Against Torture. An immigration judge denied relief and ordered Petitioner removed to Somalia, premising his decision on an adverse credibility determination stemming from Petitioner’s “pernicious pattern of prevarication.” The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed in all respects. The First Circuit denied Petitioner’s petition for judicial review, holding that BIA articulated specific and cogent reasons in support of its adverse credibility determination. View "Ahmed v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of El Salvador, submitted an application for “temporary protected status,” which affords aliens protection from removal from the United States upon a determination that conditions in the alien’s home country prevent the alien’s safe return. The Attorney General designated El Salvador as a country whose nationals may qualify for temporary protected status after two large earthquakes struck the country. The Department of Homeland Security denied Petitioner’s application. Petitioner was later served with a notice to appear for removal proceedings. Petitioner subsequently filed a renewed application for temporary protected status. An Immigration Judge (IJ) denied the application after finding that Petitioner failed to provide “reliable” information that he was in the country soon enough to be eligible for temporary protected status. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed. The First Circuit vacated the decision of the BIA, holding that the reasons the BIA gave for its decision were not adequate in this instance. Remanded. View "Shul-Navarro v. Holder" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, who was blind, requested transportation subsidies from a Maine state agency. The agency refused the request. After an unsuccessful appeal to an administrative hearing officer, Plaintiff brought suit in the federal district court. A magistrate judge recommended dismissal but suggested that Plaintiff reframe his action as one for judicial review under Title I of the Rehabilitation Act. Plaintiff subsequently sought leave to amend his complaint to assert a claim for judicial review. The agency objected, arguing that Plaintiff’s proposed claim was barred by Maine’s general thirty-day statute of limitations for judicial review of administrative decisions. The district court allowed Plaintiff to file his proposed amended complaint and concluded that the hearing officer should have granted Plaintiff relief. The agency appealed, arguing that Plaintiff’s action for judicial review was time-barred. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) Plaintiff’s judicial review action under 29 U.S.C. 722(c)(5)(J) arises out of a post-1990 congressional enactment within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. 1658, which enactment does not explicitly incorporate any specific limitations period; and (2) accordingly, the right to judicial review that the statute creates is subject to the general catch-all limitations period contained in section 1658(a). View "Millay v. State of Maine Dep't of Labor" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that police officers used excessive force when they shot and killed her sixteen-year-old son (Anthony). The district court granted the police officers' motion for summary judgment and dismissed all claims. The officers responded to an activated burglar alarm at a liquor store, were involved in a car chase with Anthony, and when one of the officers exited his vehicle, Anthony drove towards him. The shots were fired at Anthony when he was driving towards one of the officers. The court concluded that a reasonable officer in the same circumstances would have believed that Anthony posed a threat of serious physical harm to the officer when the officer fired the shots. In any event, the officers were entitled to summary judgment based on qualified immunity because they did not violate clearly established law. Plaintiff failed to point to any case that clearly establishes the unconstitutionality of using deadly force to end a car chase that threatened the physical safety of the officers and others in the area. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "McGrath v. Tavares, et al." on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of El Salvador, filed applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. An Immigration Judge (IJ) denied relief, and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed. However, the IJ committed a clear error of fact in its factfinding, and this erroneous finding was recited in the BIA’s order denying Petitioner’s appeal. The First Circuit granted Petitioner’s petition for review and remanded for further proceedings, holding that, in light of principles of exhaustion, it was for the BIA to address in the first instance Petitioner’s arguments that the error affected the BIA’s ruling both as to whether he had a well-founded fear of future persecution and as to whether there was a nexus between the persecution and a protected ground. View "Perez v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Guatemala, came to the United States on a tourist visa and later conceded removability. Petitioner sought relief, including withholding of removal, claiming that she had a problem in Guatemala with a group of people known as guerillas. An immigration judge denied relief. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissed Petitioner’s appeal, concluding that Petitioner had not established past persecution or a clear probability of future persecution, and therefore, Petitioner was not eligible for withholding of removal. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that Petitioner was not eligible for withholding of removal, where the BIA’s determination that Petitioner had not suffered past persecution was not erroneous, and substantial evidence supported the BIA’s conclusion that Petitioner had not established a likelihood of future persecution. View "Bedoya Lopez de Zea v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Brazil, entered the United States on a tourist visa in 2011. Petitioner married a United States citizen in 2004, at which point he was granted conditional permanent resident status. Petitioner and his wife did not seek to alter Petitioner’s status so it would no longer be conditional by the deadline, and, after his marriage ended, Petitioner filed for a hardship waiver. The United States Citizenship and Immigration Service denied Petitioner’s waiver request, and Petitioner was served with a notice to appear in removal proceedings. Petitioner renewed his waiver request, which an Immigration Judge denied. The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed, finding that Petitioner did not make a showing that he entered into his marriage in good faith. The First Circuit denied Petitioner’s petition for review, holding that the Board’s finding on the issue of whether Petitioner’s marriage was entered into in good faith was supported by substantial evidence on the record. View "Lamim v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a citizen of Guatemala, applied for asylum and withholding of removal, claiming that he left for the United States because he feared a gang would kill him. An Immigration Judge (IJ) denied the application. The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed summarily. The First Circuit denied Petitioner’s petition for review, holding that there was sufficient evidence in the record to support the IJ’s factual finding that Petitioner failed to establish a viable nexus between the persecution he identified and the particular social group to which he claimed to belong - abandoned Guatemalan children lacking protection from gang violence. View "Guerra-Marchorro v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native of Guatemala and an indigenous Mayan Quiche, entered the United States without inspection. After Petitioner was charged with removability, Petitioner filed requests for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the United Nations Convention Against Torture, arguing that he and his Mayan Quiche community had been attacked by the Guatemalan military on account of their race and ethnicity and that he would suffer serious harm if returned to Guatemala. An immigration judge (IJ) denied Petitioner’s requests for relief and ordered him removed, concluding that Petitioner did not qualify for asylum because he had not demonstrated past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of a protected ground. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed the IJ’s decision. The First Circuit vacated the order of the BIA affirming the IJ’s decision and remanded, holding that the BIA’s and IJ’s determinations that Petitioner did not demonstrate past persecution on account of a protected ground were not supported by substantial evidence. View "Ordonez-Quino v. Holder" on Justia Law