Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

Petitioner, a native and citizen of the People's Republic of China, was charged with being subject to removal. Petitioner conceded removability. Petitioner subsequently submitted an application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief pursuant to the Convention Against Torture, which the immigration judge denied. The board of immigration appeals (BIA) affirmed. Petitioner later moved to reopen his case, citing changed country conditions and claiming that he would be targeted for persecution on account of his religion. The BIA denied Petitioner's motion. The First Circuit Court of Appeals denied Petitioner's petition for review, holding that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Petitioner's motion for failure to establish prima facie eligibility for any form of relief. View "Wu v. Holder" on Justia Law

The Department of Homeland Security instituted removal proceedings against Petitioner, a Guatemalan national, who had entered the United States without inspection. Petitioner applied for withholding of removal, protection under the Convention Against Torture, and, alternatively, post-hearing voluntary departure. The immigration judge denied Petitioner's requests for relief. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissed Petitioner's appeal. Eight months later, Petitioner filed a motion to reopen to allow him to apply for pre-hearing voluntary departure, but because the motion was filed beyond the time allotted by the applicable regulation, the motion was addressed to the BIA's sua sponte authority to reopen. The BIA denied the motion and subsequently refused reconsideration. The First Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed Petitioner's petition for judicial review of the denial of reconsideration, holding that it lacked the authority to review the BIA's denial of Petitioner's motion to reconsider the failure to grant relief where Petitioner's motion to reopen was untimely. View "Charuc v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of the Dominican Republic, entered the United States without admission or parole. In 2005, the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service charged Petitioner as removable. After a hearing in 2008 at which Petitioner did not appear, the immigration judge ordered Petitioner removed in absentia. In 2009, Petitioner filed a motion to reopen in order to submit an application for cancellation of removal. The immigration court granted the motion to reopen. A few days before the deadline for her application, Petitioner filed a motion for continuance seeking additional time to file the application. After the deadline had passed, the immigration court denied the motion for continuance and held that Petitioner had abandoned the application for cancellation. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) the BIA did not err in concluding that Petitioner was statutorily ineligible for cancellation of removal; and (2) the immigration court did not abuse its discretion by denying the motion for continuance. View "Soto v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of the Dominican Republic, was admitted to the United States as a lawful permanent resident in 1969. In 2008 and 2009, Petitioner pleaded nolo contendere in state court in two separate cases to possession of a controlled substance. The Department of Homeland Security subsequently initiated removal proceedings against Petitioner as an alien convicted of violating a law relating to a controlled substance. Petitioner applied for cancellation of removal. An immigration judge (IJ) granted Petitioner's application for relief because of Petitioner's extended residency, strong family ties, and history of employment in the United States. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) vacated the IJ's decision, determining (1) Petitioner's second state conviction triggered the statutory bar against her application for removal; and (2) Petitioner failed to establish a claim for relief on the merits. On remand, the IJ entered an order of removal, and the BIA affirmed. The First Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed Petitioner's petition for review for lack of jurisdiction because it could not overturn a BIA's discretionary denial of relief, and any opinion it reached on Petitioner's statutory or procedural claims would be purely advisory and beyond the Court's authority. View "Ortega v. Holder" on Justia Law

The City of Springfield enacted two local ordinances that imposed new legal duties on (1) property owners to maintain property during the foreclosure process and provide a $10,000 cash bond per foreclosure to the City, and (2) mortgagees to attempt a settlement through negotiations before foreclosing. In dispute was the definition of "owner" in the first ordinance, which included mortgagees who were not in possession and had begun the foreclosure process. The ordinance imposed the duties on the mortgagees whether the mortgagors were still in possession. Six banks sued in state court, seeking to have the ordinances invalidated as inconsistent with and preempted by comprehensive state laws governing foreclosure and property maintenance and as inconsistent with state and federal constitutional guarantees. The case was removed to federal district court, which concluded that the ordinances were valid. The banks appealed. The First Circuit Court of Appeals certified dispositive state law questions to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court because the outcome of the case depended on unresolved questions of Massachusetts law and raised significant policy concerns better suited for resolution by that state court. View "Easthampton Savings Bank v. City of Springfield" on Justia Law

Under the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (WIA), Maine obtained federal funding to strengthen local workforces. Plaintiff was the executive director of the Local Area I Workforce Investment Board (LWIB). Plaintiff reported to and received her salary from Aroostook County, and the County used WIA funds for this purpose. Federal monitors from the Department of Labor undertook a compliance review of the LWIB and found that Plaintiff's job description was not in compliance with federal program requirements because, absent an express agreement between the LWIB and the County, the County could not be Plaintiff's employer. Plaintiff transmitted results of the federal monitoring visit but did so as part of her job responsibilities. The Northern Maine Development Commission, Inc. (NMDC) was later designated as the fiscal agent for the LWIB, and Plaintiff's employment was terminated. Plaintiff applied for NMDC's director of workforce development petition was not hired. Plaintiff then filed this Maine Whistleblowers' Protection Act (MWPA) action against NMDC for violating the whistleblower law. The district court granted summary judgment for NMDC. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that, on the undisputed facts, Plaintiff was not a whistleblower under the MWPA and so had no claim against NMDC. View "Winslow v. Aroostook County" on Justia Law

Petitioners, natives and citizens of Russia, overstayed their visas and applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). An immigration judge (IJ) denied Petitioners' applications but granted them voluntary departure. In regards to Petitioners' asylum application, the IJ found that Petitioner Pavel Ivanov's testimony about mistreatment he experienced because of his Pentecostal faith was credible and consistent, but that the persecution Ivanov experienced in Russia was not "on account of" his Pentecostal faith. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) summarily affirmed the IJ's asylum determination. The First Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the order of the BIA affirming the IJ's decision and remanded for further proceedings, holding that Ivanov established his eligibility for asylum. View "Ivanov v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Guatemala, entered the United States illegally. Petitioner later sought relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), asserting that he was likely to be tortured by gang members if he were returned to his native country. The immigration judge denied relief and ordered removal, concluding that Petitioner was not credible. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissed Petitioner's appeal. The First Circuit Court of Appeals denied Petitioner's petition for review, holding that the BIA did not commit legal error in denying Petitioner's request for relief under the CAT because the conclusion that Petitioner was not credible was supported by substantial evidence. View "Martinez v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a citizen and native of El Salvador, was an ex-member of a violent criminal street gang based in the United States. After Petitioner was charged as removable, Petitioner conceded removability and applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Before the immigration judge (IJ), Petitioner claimed that he would face persecution and torture due to his former gang membership if repatriated. The IJ denied Petitioner's applications, concluding that as a former member of the gang, Petitioner was not a member of a protected social group eligible for asylum or withholding of removal. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed. The First Circuit Court of Appeals denied Petitioner's petition for review, holding (1) the agency's decision that Petitioner was not a member of a particular social group must stand; and (2) the BIA did not err in finding that Petitioner did not qualify for relief under the CAT. View "Cantarero v. Holder" on Justia Law

After removal proceedings were instituted against Petitioner, a native and citizen of Ecuador, Petitioner conceded his removability but applied for withholding of removal and for protection under the Convention Against Torture. In support, Petitioner claimed his unfavorable financial prospects in Ecuador made him fearful of returning against his native country. The immigration judge (IJ) denied relief, and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed. Petitioner subsequently filed a motion to reopen, which the BIA denied. Petitioner filed a motion requesting that the BIA reconsider its decision rejecting his claim of persecution as well as a second motion to reopen, alleging ineffective assistance of his prior counsel. The BIA denied both motions. The First Circuit Court of Appeals denied Petitioner's petition for review, holding that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in (1) denying Petitioner's motion for reconsideration where the BIA correctly found that Petitioner did not allege grounds for withholding of removal. and (2) denying Petitioner's second motion to reopen because Petitioner did not carry his burden of demonstrating ineffective assistance of counsel. View "Muyubisnay-Cungachi v. Holder" on Justia Law