Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

This appeal concerned the decade-long litigation regarding the regulation of Puerto Rico’s milk industry. The district court approved a comprehensive Settlement Agreement reached by the original parties: the government defendants, including the Office of the Milk Industry Regulatory Administration for the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (Spanish acronym “ORIL”), and the plaintiff milk processors, Vaqueria Tres Monjitas, Inc. and Suiza Dairy, Inc. After the district court approved of the Agreement, ORIL filed a motion to alter or amend the judgment, challenging the portion of the district court order opining that Puerto Rico had waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity by entering into the Agreement. The district court denied ORIL’s motion. The First Circuit Court of Appeals (1) held that the language at issue was merely a statement of dicta and not a judgment, and consistent with this construction, the district court was strongly encouraged to strike the statement; and (2) otherwise dismissed the appeal for want of jurisdiction. View "Vaqueria Tres Monjitas, Inc. v. Comas-Pagan" on Justia Law

In 1999, Redondo Construction Corporation pled guilty to aiding and abetting the making of false statements during its work on a federal highway project. The Puerto Rico Highway and Transportation Authority (“PRHTA”) and the Puerto Rico Public Guildings Authority (“PBA”) subsequently revoked the bids it had awarded Redondo before the plea and suspended Redondo from bidding on new contracts. Redondo challenged both decisions, which resulted in settlement agreements with both agencies allowing Redondo to resume bidding for contracts. After Puerto Rico passed Law 458, which prohibited Puerto Rico agencies from awarding contracts corporations convicted of offenses involving public funds, the PBA cancelled several of Redondo’s bids and the contract it had executed with Redondo, and the PRHTA withdrew from its settlement with Redondo. Redondo sued PRHTA, PBA, and several officials at both agencies, alleging that Defendants were in breach of the settlement agreements, that this caused Redondo’s bankruptcy, and that Defendants were liable in damages. The district court granted the PRHTA’s and the individual defendants’ motions for summary judgment and sua sponte dismissed Redondo’s claims against the PBA. The First Circuit Court of Appeals (1) affirmed the entry of summary judgment as to the PRHTA and the individual defendants, as Redondo had no record of evidence of damages against these defendants; but (2) vacated the dismissal of the claim against the PBA, as the court did not meet the necessary conditions for entering judgment sua sponte. View "Redondo Constr. Corp. v. Izquierdo" on Justia Law

Plaintiff was a real estate broker in Puerto Rico who was a vocal critic of the Puerto Rico Real Estate Examining Board. After the Board denied Plaintiff’s application for a license to establish a bilingual real estate school, Plaintiff filed suit against the Board and several individuals associated with it, claiming that the Board denied her a license in retaliation for her public criticism of the Board, thereby violating her First Amendment rights. The district court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, concluding that the Board had a legitimate non-discriminatory reason - the tardiness of Plaintiff’s application - for rejecting the application. The First Circuit Court of Appeals reversed vacated the district court’s judgment, holding that Plaintiff’s allegations plausibly stated a claim under 42 U.S.C. 1983. Remanded. View "Maloy v. Ballori-Lage" on Justia Law

Petitioners, a married couple from Guatemala, entered the United States illegally in the mid-1990s. In 2008, Petitioners applied for asylum. Their application was denied, and removal proceedings subsequently began. Petitioners conceded removability but sought cancellation of removal, asserting that their departure would cause hardship to their twelve-year-old son, Brian, who was born in the United States and would, Petitioners claimed, face several formidable obstacles in Guatemala. An immigration judge (IJ) denied Petitioners’ application and ordered them removed to Guatemala, finding that Petitioners failed to meet the hardship eligibility requirement for cancellation of removal. The Board of Immigration Appeals upheld the IJ’s judgment. The First Circuit Court of Appeals denied in part and otherwise dismissed Petitioners’ petition for review, holding that the IJ correctly found that the evidence presented by Petitioners was not capable of supporting an “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” finding. View "Alvarado v. Holder" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, the former captain of a village fire department, filed this action against the department, its fire chief, and the board of fire commissioners (collectively, Defendants) after the board chose to terminate Plaintiff’s employment. Plaintiff alleged political discrimination in violation of the First Amendment and 42 U.S.C. 1983, retaliation in violation of the Massachusetts Whistleblower Act, and tortious interference with contractual relations. The district court granted summary judgment for Defendants on all counts. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that Defendants presented legitimate, business-related grounds for their employment decisions, and Plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the proffered explanations were pretextual. View "Pierce v. Cotuit Fire Dist." on Justia Law

Petitioner was charged with removability based on the termination of her conditional permanent resident status. Petitioner conceded removability but filed multiple I-751 forms with the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and requested waivers of the joint-filing requirement for removal of conditions on permanent residency. The USCIS denied the petitions. An immigration judge (IJ) ordered removal and denied Petitioner’s waiver requests because Petitioner failed to establish either good faith or extreme hardship. Also, in an exercise of the IJ’s discretion, the IJ separately denied Petitioner’s requests for a waiver because of moral character concerns due to Petitioner’s having been convicted of theft. The board of immigration appeals (BIA) adopted the decision of the IJ. The First Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed Petitioner’s petition for review for want of jurisdiction because Petitioner raised no colorable legal or constitutional claims upon review. View "Lopez v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native of Guatemala, illegally entered the United States in 2003. In 2006, Petitioner was charged as removable. Petitioner conceded his removability and applied for withholding of removal, protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), and voluntary departure from the United States. At a merits hearing before the immigration judge (IJ), Petitioner testified that he feared being the victim of gang violence in Guatemala because he taught and counseled students to avoid joining gangs. The IJ denied Petitioner’s applications for withholding of removal and CAT protection and granted him voluntary departure. The board of immigration appeals (BIA) dismissed Petitioner’s appeal. Petitioner subsequently moved to reopen removal proceedings on the basis of new evidence he claimed showed that teachers who opposed gang practices were being persecuted. The BIA denied the motion. The First Circuit Court of Appeals denied Petitioner’s petition for review, holding that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in finding the new evidence did not warrant a different outcome in Petitioner’s case or in finding the new evidence was not material. View "Rosales-Perez v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a citizen of Nigeria, entered the United States using a false name and fraudulently obtained visa. After the government commenced removal proceedings, Petitioner filed for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture, citing fear of religious persecution. The immigration judge denied relief and ordered removal. The board of immigration appeals (BIA) affirmed. The BIA denied Petitioner's motion to reopen, which added a claim for asylum, and his subsequently filed motion to reconsider. The First Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed Petitioner's petition for review his motion to reopen and denied Petitioner's petition to review his motion to reconsider, holding that the BIA did not abuse its discretion or err in its judgment. View "Saka v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Albania, entered the United States illegally using a fraudulent passport. After Petitioner was charged with removal, Petitioner conceded his removability but filed an application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. The immigration judge denied Petitioner's applications, concluding (1) Petitioner established that he had suffered past persecution in Albania due to his political sympathies and his ethnic background and was consequently entitled to a presumption of a well-founded fear of future persecution, but (2) the government's admitted evidence was sufficient to rebut the presumption. The board of immigration appeals (BIA) affirmed, finding that the government's evidence of changed country conditions rebutted the presumption of relief raised by Petitioner's past persecution on political and ethnic grounds. The First Circuit Court of Appeals denied Petitioner's petition for review, holding that the evidence supported the BIA's finding of materially changed country conditions since Petitioner's departure, and therefore, the BIA did not err in denying Petitioner's applications. View "Ruci v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of China, entered the United States illegally and was charged with removability. Petitioner conceded removability but requested relief in the form of asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The second time the matter was before the immigration judge (IJ), the IJ determined that Petitioner was not entitled to relief in any form. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissed Petitioner's appeal, concluding that Petitioner's applications for relief were governed by the REAL ID Act and that Petitioner was not entitled to relief from removal. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the BIA (1) erred in determining the REAL ID Act applied to Petitioner's case, but the error was harmless; and (2) did not err in finding Petitioner failed to establish that he was entitled to asylum where he did not demonstrate that he had experienced past persecution or that he had a well founded fear of future persecution. View "Wu v. Holder" on Justia Law