Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Ecuador, entered the United States without being admitted or paroled. When Petitioner was placed into removal proceedings, she applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. The immigration judge denied Petitioner's applications for relief. The board of immigration appeals (BIA) dismissed Petitioner's appeal. The First Circuit Court of Appeals denied Petitioner's petition for review of the BIA's order, holding (1) the BIA did not err in concluding that Petitioner was ineligible for asylum, as Petitioner failed to demonstrate her status as a refugee; and (2) because Petitioner failed to demonstrate that she was eligible for asylum, her claims for withholding of removal and relief under CAT also failed. View "Guaman-Loja v. Holder" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs were several dismissed or demoted employees of the State Insurance Fund Corporation, a public corporation that administered Puerto Rico's workers' compensation program. Before the adverse employment actions took effect, Plaintiffs requested informal administrative hearings before the Corporation. Plaintiffs then filed administrative appeals before the Corporation's board of appeals. The board had not acted on the appeals when Plaintiffs sued the Corporation and several of its officers in the U.S. district court, alleging political discrimination and due process violations stemming from adverse employment actions. The district court abstained under Younger v. Harris and dismissed Plaintiffs' claims, finding that Plaintiffs voluntarily engaged the wheels of an administrative procedure before filing an action in federal court. The First Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, holding (1) the district court erred in abstaining based on Younger, and dismissal was not the remedy in any event; and (2) a stay of the federal proceedings was appropriate in this case pending the Puerto Rico Supreme Court's decision in Gonzales Segarra v. State Ins. Fund Corp. View "Casiano-Montanez v. State Ins. Fund Corp." on Justia Law

In 2003, Petitioner pled guilty to conspiracy-to-commit larceny stemming from a scheme in which Petitioner stole from the dorm rooms of his college classmates. At the time, Petitioner was a lawful permanent resident. Consequently, an immigration judge and the board of immigration appeals (BIA) found that Petitioner was removable because his crimes involved "moral turpitude" within the meaning of the Immigration and Nationality Act. The First Circuit Court of Appeals granted Petitioner's petition for review and vacated the BIA's order dismissing Petitioner's appeal, holding that the BIA erred in finding Petitioner removable, as there was no statement in Petitioner's plea colloquy admitting an intent to commit a permanent deprivation. Remanded. View "Patel v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of the Dominican Republic, entered the United States without inspection in 1992. In 1995, an immigration judge (IJ) adjudged Petitioner deportable and gave her until 1996 to voluntarily depart. Petitioner remained in the country. In 2011, Petitioner filed a motion to reopen her removal proceedings, basing her motion on charged circumstances and citing her marriage to a United States citizen and approval of her visa petition. The IJ denied her motion as untimely. The board of appeals affirmed. The First Circuit Court of Appeals denied Petitioner's petition for review, holding that Petitioner missed the deadline to file a motion to reopen, and none of the regulatory exceptions to the deadline applied in this case. View "Paca v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioners, a Pakistani native and his family, sought refuge in the United States in 2009 after the Taliban began attacking Awami National Party (ANP) activists. Petitioner was an active member of the ANP. Later in 2009, Petitioners filed applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. An immigration judge (IJ) denied Petitioners' applications and ordered them removed to Pakistan. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BOA) affirmed the IJ's order. The First Circuit Court of Appeals granted Petitioners' petition for review and vacated the order of the BIA, holding that neither the IJ nor the BIA presented a reasoned analysis of the evidence as a whole in this case. Remanded. View "Khattak v. Holder" on Justia Law

Plaintiff was a partner in a medical practice where she served as a staff anesthesiologist. When Plaintiff's dependence on opioids came to light, her employer had in force a group employee benefit plan, underwritten and administered by Union Security Insurance Company & Management Company for Merrimack Anesthesia Associates Long Term Disability Plan (USIC), which included long-term disability (LTD) benefits. When Plaintiff applied for those benefits, USIC refused to pay benefits past the point when Plaintiff was discharged from a treatment center, finding that Plaintiff's risk for relapse was not the same as a current disability. Plaintiff brought suit in the federal district court. The district court ultimately awarded Plaintiff LTD benefits for the maximum time available under the plan, concluding that categorically excluding the risk of drug abuse relapse was an unreasonable interpretation of the plan. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that, in an addiction context, a risk of relapse can be so significant as to constitute a current disability. View "Colby v. Union Sec. Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Liberia, filed for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. Petitioner conceded his removability, and the immigration judge (IJ) scheduled a merits hearing to adjudicate Petitioner's applications. Because Petitioner's counsel failed to submit required biometric and biographical information to the Department of Homeland Security, the IJ found that Petitioner had abandoned his asylum application and ordered him removed to Liberia. Petitioner did not appeal. Three years later, Petitioner moved to reopen his case, arguing that he had received ineffective assistance of counsel. The IJ denied the motion as untimely. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed. At issue on appeal was whether Petitioner should have the benefit of the equitable tolling doctrine. The First Circuit Court of Appeals denied Petitioner's petition for review, agreeing with the BIA's conclusion that Petitioner's motion to reopen was untimely, as Petitioner had not diligently pursued his rights. View "Bead v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner was a Salvadoran national who entered the United States without inspection. After the Department of Homeland Security placed him in removal proceedings, Petitioner conceded removability and cross-applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the United National Convention Against Torture. An immigration judge (IJ) denied Petitioner's cross-application and entered an order of removal. Petitioner appealed, contending that threats to his life or freedom because of his membership in a gang precluded his removal. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed the IJ's decision. Petitioner subsequently filed a motion to reconsider the order. In support of his motion, he argued, for the first time, that his family constituted a particular social group and that he feared persecution on account of his family membership, among other things. The BIA denied the motion because it did not identify any error of fact or law in the BIA's original decision. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that Petitioner in this situation may not proffer, as the basis for a motion to reconsider, a ground for relief which, though previously available, was not previously asserted. View "Martinez-Lopez v. Holder" on Justia Law

NextEra Energy Seabrook, LLC, which operated a nuclear power plant in Seabrook, New Hampshire, applied to renew its operating license. NextEra submitted a required environmental report that concluded that offshore wind electric generation was not a reasonable alternative to the extended licensing of Seabrook. Several environmental groups (collectively, Petitioners) questioned and sought a hearing on NextEra's environmental report. The Atomic Safety and Licensing Board admitted the contention, but the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) denied the admission of the contention, which resulted in Petitioners not being entitled to have a hearing on the merits about their contention that generation of electricity from offshore wind was a reasonable alternative source of baseload energy to the relicensing of Seabrook. The First Circuit Court of Appeals denied Petitioners' petition for review, holding (1) the NRC did not misapply case law interpreting the National Environmental Policy Act in formulating its contention-admissibility standard; and (2) NRC's conclusion that the contention was inadmissible was not arbitrary or capricious, and there was no basis in law to set it aside. View "Beyond Nuclear v. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n" on Justia Law

Removal proceedings were initiated against Petitioner as an alien who entered the United States without inspection. Although he conceded removability, Petitioner indicated that he intended to use the proceeding to obtain adjustment of his immigration status. An immigration judge (IJ) denied Petitioner's application, concluding that Petitioner failed to meet his burden of showing that his application was timely filed. Petitioner appealed, arguing that the IJ erred by relying on the stamped date of his application rather than the original submission date and therefore in not adjusting his status. The board of immigration appeals (BIA) dismissed Petitioner's appeal, finding no clear error in the IJ's determination. The First Circuit Court of Appeals denied Petitioner's petition for review, holding that the BIA did not err in its judgment. View "Wu v. Holder" on Justia Law