Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

Petitioner, a Chinese national, entered the United States without inspection in 1993. Federal authorities soon served Petitioner with a show-cause order charging removability. Petitioner failed to appear at the scheduled removal hearing, and the immigration judge (IJ) entered an order of deportation in absentia. Several years later, Petitioner moved to reopen the proceedings. The IJ denied Petitioner’s motion as untimely, concluding that Petitioner had waited too long past the 180-day deadline for such motions to file his motion. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed. More than eight years later, Petitioner filed a second motion to reopen directly with the BIA. The BIA denied the second motion to reopen, and the First Circuit Court of Appeals held that the BIA did not abuse its discretion. Almost three years later, Petitioner filed a third motion to reopen. The BIA denied the motion as untimely, concluding that no plausible justification existed for relieving Petitioner from the 180-day deadline. The First Circuit denied Petitioner’s petition for judicial review, holding that the BIA acted within its discretion in finding that Petitioner’s third motion to reopen was untimely. View "Wang v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner, an Indian national who entered the United States unlawfully in 2003, filed an application for asylum and withholding of removal. After a hearing on the merits, an immigration judge denied Petitioner’s application, finding that Petitioner’s testimony was not credible and that Petitioner failed to establish either past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed. The First Circuit Court of Appeals denied Petitioner’s petition for review, holding that Petitioner waived any challenge to the BIA’s denial of his application for asylum and that rejection of Petitioner’s claim for withholding must follow from the defeat of Petitioner’s asylum claim. View "Singh v. Holder" on Justia Law

Green Mountain Realty Corp. (“GMR”) sought to erect a 140-foot cell phone tower in Milton, Massachusetts that would fill a significant gap in the wireless coverage provided by T-Mobile’s networks. The Town of Milton rejected the proposed tower. GMR sued Milton in federal court. The district court granted summary judgment to Milton. The First Circuit Court of Appeals remanded for consideration of whether Milton’s denials resulted an “effective prohibition” of personal wireless services in contravention of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. On remand, GMR submitted evidence indicating that a shorter tower would suffice to eliminate the coverage gap in T-Mobile’s network. The district court granted summary judgment for Milton. The First Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, holding that a reasonable finder of fact could have found Milton’s denials rejected the only feasible plan for remedying the coverage gap and therefore constituted an unlawful effective prohibition of T-Mobile’s provision of wireless services, unless GMR was allowed to build a cell phone tower between ninety and 120 feet tall. Remanded. View "Green Mountain Realty Corp. v. Leonard" on Justia Law

Petitioner in this case was a native and citizen of Sri Lanka. In 2007, an immigration judge (IJ) rejected Petitioner’s claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) and ordered Petitioner removed. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissed Petitioner’s appeal. In 2010, Petitioner moved to reopen her case, alleging changed country conditions. The BIA denied the motion. In 2012, more than three years after the BIA had affirmed Petitioner’s order of removal, Petitioner filed another motion to reopen, along with related relief, again alleging changed country conditions. The BIA denied relief, concluding that Petitioner’s proof did not show changed country conditions, that she had not shown prima facie eligibility for withholding of removal, asylum, or CAT relief, and that no exceptional circumstances justified exercising its discretion to reopen on its own. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the BIA did not reversibly err in concluding that Petitioner’s second reopen motion was barred by her failure to show a material adverse change in country conditions. View "Perera v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a Colombian national, obtained a tourist visa to enter the United States. Petitioner overstayed her visa, after which federal authorities initiated removal proceedings against her. Petitioner conceded removability but cross-applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection pursuant to the United National Convention Against Torture, claiming that she had been persecuted, and would face future persecution, on account of her status as the expatriate widow of a slain narco-trafficker. An immigration judge denied Petitioner’s application for asylum. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) entered a final order denying Petitioner asylum and ordering her removed to her homeland. The First Circuit Court of Appeals sustained the final order of removal and denied Petitioner’s petition for review, holding (1) the BIA did not err in invoking the REAL ID Act’s corroboration requirements to her asylum application; and (2) the BIA did not err in concluding that Petitioner failed to carry her burden of proving either past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution. View "Moreno v. Holder" on Justia Law

In 2011, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents in New Hampshire arrested six aliens who had prior criminal convictions or arrests. The arrests were part of a nationwide enforcement program. The Union Leader, a New Hampshire newspaper, requested the names and addresses of the six individuals arrested in New Hampshire. The ICE provided the Union Leader with I-213 forms from which the aliens’ names, addresses, and other personal information had been redacted. The Union Leader subsequently filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) complaint to compel disclosure of the arrestees’ names and addresses. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of ICE, concluding that FOIA exempted the requested information from disclosure as an unwarranted invasion of the arrestees’ privacy. The First Circuit Court of Appeals reversed in part, holding that the public interest in disclosure outweighed the arrestees’ privacy interests, and therefore, the withheld information subject to this appeal was not exempt from disclosure. Remanded. View "Union Leader Corp. v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec. " on Justia Law

Plaintiff was hired by Employer in 1983. Plaintiff was covered by a short-term disability plan, and the Life Insurance Company of North America (“LINA”) had the authority to decide questions of eligibility for coverage or benefits under the plan. After Plaintiff underwent back surgery in 2009, LINA at first granted but then denied Plaintiff disability benefits. In 2010, Plaintiff sued LINA, Employer, and others in Puerto Rico court, seeking review of the benefits denial. LINA later removed the action to the District of Puerto Rico. Ultimately, the district court (1) found LINA’s decision was not arbitrary and capricious because Plaintiff failed to produce sufficient medical evidence of disability, and (2) dismissed Plaintiff’s claim against Employer for failure to plead it with specificity. Plaintiff appealed. The First Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed Plaintiff’s appeal on procedural grounds because Plaintiff committed numerous procedural errors, which precluded intelligent review. View "Gonzalez-Rios v. Hewlett Packard PR Co." on Justia Law

In 2011, the then-Governor of Puerto Rico appointed Plaintiff to the position of Advocate for Persons with Disabilities. In 2013, new legislation established an Office of the Ombudsman for Personal with Disabilities. Plaintiff was subsequently informed that an Ombudsman had been appointed and that his position had been abolished by legislative act. Plaintiff sued the Governor and other officials for attempting to oust him from his job as Advocate, claiming that it was unconstitutional for Puerto Rico to abolish the Advocate position without an individualized hearing. The district court issued a preliminary injunction in favor of Plaintiff. The First Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the district court’s order, concluding that the court erred in finding that Plaintiff had demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits where there was no viable claim that the abolition of the Advocate Office independently violated some constitutional proscription. View "Diaz-Carrasquillo v. Garcia-Padilla" on Justia Law

Plaintiff was a long-time employee of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). Plaintiff was separated from her employment as a result of her inability to return to the workplace resulting from severe depression. Plaintiff filed a complaint against the IRS alleging that she had been constructively discharged on account of her disability in violation of the Rehabilitation Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act. The district court dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint on the ground that Plaintiff had not lodged her administrative complaint within forty-five days of the incident, as statutorily required, thereby rejecting Plaintiff’s contention that equitable tolling applied to her claim. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that Plaintiff did not establish that equitable tolling should be applied to save her untimely administrative action. View "Bartlett v. Dep't of Treasury" on Justia Law

Petitioners, Nova Flora Marsadu and Roly Rondonuwu, were a married couple who were native citizens of Indonesia. Marsadu, and later Rondonuwu, filed applications for asylum based on their fears of being persecuted in Indonesia due to their Christian faith. An immigration judge (IJ) denied Petitioners’ claims. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed the IJ’s decision. Petitioners later filed an untimely motion with the BIA to reopen removal proceedings, arguing that they were prima facie eligible for asylum due to recent changes in Indonesia’s conditions that put them at risk of persecution. The BIA denied Petitioners’ motion to reopen removal proceedings, concluding that Petitioners failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that they would face religious persecution if they returned to Indonesia. The First Circuit Court of Appeals denied Petitioners' petition for review, holding that Petitioners failed to demonstrate error sufficient to warrant reopening of their removal proceedings. View "Marsadu v. Holder" on Justia Law