Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

Petitioner, a Guatemalan national, applied for withholding of removal and protection under the United Nations Convention Against Torture after the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) commenced removal proceedings against him. Because the DHS had also initiated removal proceedings against Petitioner's cousin, who also applied for similar relief, the two sets of proceedings were consolidated. After a hearing, the immigration judge (IJ) denied the cousins' applications, grounding her decision on a determination that neither man had testified credibly. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed the orders of removal. The First Circuit Court of Appeals denied Petitioner's petition for review, holding (1) the Court had jurisdiction to consider Petitioner's issues even though it was Petitioner's cousin who raised them before the BIA; (2) the IJ's adverse credibility determination was correctly upheld because it was adequately tied to substantial evidence in the record; and (3) the IJ's denial of Petitioner's mid-trial request for a continuance was not an abuse of discretion. View "Mazariegos-Paiz v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioners, natives and citizens of Albania, entered the U.S. in 2001 but ultimately overstayed their visas. Conceding their removability, Petitioners filed applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture, contending that if they went back to Albania, they would become a target as a result of their political beliefs and activities. The Immigration Judge (IJ) denied Petitioners' requests. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the BIA and the IJ's denial of the asylum claim, holding that the denial was supported by substantial evidence in the record, including evidence of a fundamental change in Albania such that Petitioners did not have a well-founded fear of future persecution. As Petitioners failed to show they were eligible for asylum, they were similarly ineligible for withholding of removal and protection under CAT. View "Vasili v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a Brazilian citizen, entered the United States illegally. Petitioner then began working with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents to identify sellers of fraudulent immigration documents. Due to her work as an informant, Petitioner faced harassment and threats from people in the United States and in Brazil. Eventually, Petitioner stopped assisting the ICE because of the harassment, after which the government reinstated a prior removal order against her. Petitioner sought withholding of removal and relief under the United Nations Convention Against Torture, claiming that she feared returning to Brazil due to threats she had received for her work with the ICE. The immigration judge denied Petitioner's applications. The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed, holding that the persecution Petitioner faced was "on account of a personal vendetta and not on account of her membership in a particular social group." The First Circuit Court of Appeals denied Petitioner's petition for review, holding that it could not overturn the determination that the risk Petitioner faced was personal and not due to her membership in a social group. View "Costa v. Holder" on Justia Law

The City of Providence, Rhode Island enacted two ordinances to reduce tobacco use by young people. The Price Ordinance restricted the City's tobacco and cigarette retailers from reducing prices on tobacco products through coupons and multi-pack discounts. The Flavor Ordinance restricted sales of certain flavored tobacco products other than cigarettes. The National Association of Tobacco Outlets challenged the ordinances, alleging, inter alia, that the ordinances were preempted by federal and state law. The district court upheld the ordinances. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) because the Price Ordinance was an appropriate regulation of price, it fell outside the First Amendment; (2) because the Flavor Ordinance was an appropriate sales regulation, it was not preempted; and (3) neither ordinance conflicted with state law. View "Nat'l Ass'n of Tobacco Outlets, Inc. v. Providence, R.I." on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native of the Dominican Republic, pled guilty in state court to possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute. The Department of Homeland Security later ordered Petitioner's removal. Thereafter, Petitioner successfully sought vacatur of his criminal conviction. After Petitioner had been removed to the Dominican Republic, he filed a motion to reopen his removal proceedings. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denied the motion, invoking a regulation known as the "post-departure bar," which precludes a noncitizen from filing a motion to reopen after his departure from the United States. The First Circuit Court of Appeals granted Petitioner's petition for review, holding that the post-departure bar cannot prevent a noncitzen from invoking his statutory right to file a motion to reopen. View "Perez Santana v. Holder" on Justia Law

Respondent was involved in lengthy removal proceedings that culminated in her filing of a motion to reopen with the immigration judge that raised ineffective assistance of counsel and due process claims. The Board of Immigration Appeals dismissed Respondent's appeals, concluding that, pursuant to a set of regulations known as the "post-departure bar," the agency lacked jurisdiction to entertain Respondent's motion. The First Circuit Court of Appeals granted Respondent's petition for review, holding (1) as found in Perez Santana v. Holder, the post-departure bar conflicts with the unambiguous language of the motion to reopen statute; and (2) consequently, the regulation, in the circumstances applicable to this petition for review, cannot preclude Respondent from vindicating her right to seek reopening of her removal proceedings. View "Boliero v. Holder" on Justia Law

Plaintiff's property was insured by a standard flood insurance policy (SFIP) issued by Allstate Insurance Company, a private insurer participating in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). Allstate issued Plaintiff's SFIP on behalf of FEMA, the federal agency that administers the NFIP. After Plaintiff's property was damaged by a flood, Allstate paid him for some but not all claims. Plaintiff sued Allstate for the alleged remaining unpaid covered losses, and the district court entered judgment in favor of Plaintiff. The First Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and remanded with directions to enter summary judgment in favor of Allstate, holding that Plaintiff's failure to comply with the SFIP's requirement that he file a proof of loss as to all damages sought barred recovery under his policy for those damages and required dismissal. View "DeCosta v. Allstate Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of the Dominican Republic, was convicted of unlawfully transferring a firearm around the same time that the Department of Homeland Security initiated removal proceedings against him. An immigration judge found that Petitioner's conviction constituted an aggravated felony under 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(C) and pretermitted Petitioner's previously filed application for cancellation of removal. The board of immigration appeals (BIA) affirmed, finding that Defendnat's delivery of a firearm to a purchaser constituted "trafficking in firearms" under the statute. The First Circuit Court of Appeals denied Petitioner's petition for review, holding that the BIA's definition of "trafficking in firearms" as encompassing any commercial exchange was reasonable and consistent with the statute. View "Soto-Hernandez v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a Ghanaian national who entered the United States without inspection, conceded removability after immigration authorities initiated removal proceedings. Petitioner sought adjustment of status under 8 U.S.C. 1255(i) and also applied for non-lawful permanent resident (LPR) cancellation of removal, alleging that his U.S. citizen child would suffer if he were moved. The agency found Petitioner was ineligible for adjustment of status and cancellation of removal and also denied Petitioner's motion to reconsider and reopen. The agency based its decision on the finding that Petitioner had misrepresented to immigration officials the circumstances of his marriage. The First Circuit Court of Appeals denied Petitioner's petition for review, holding (1) the agency did not err in concluding that Petitioner was inadmissible, and thus ineligible, for adjustment of status and cancellation of removal; and (2) Petitioner's additional evidence about the hardship of his family members would not have remedied the agency's finding of ineligibility for both cancellation and adjustment due to Petitioner's material misrepresentations. View "Agyei v. Holder" on Justia Law

In 1996, Congress passed a statute known as the "stop-time rule," which provides that a noncitizen's years of physical presence are cut off when he is served with notice of the commencement of removal proceedings. Petitioner, a national of Columbia, entered the United States without inspection in 1986. In 1987, Petitioner was placed into deportation proceedings. In 2007, Petitioner applied for asylum and withholding of removal. Petitioner applied for suspension of deportation, which required him to show he had accrued seven years of continuous physical presence in the United States since his arrival. Because Petitioner arrived in the United States in 1986, and his proceedings began in 1987, the immigration judge concluded that, under the stop-time rule, Petitioner had not accrued the necessary years of physical presence. The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed. The First Circuit Court of Appeals denied in part and dismissed in part for lack of jurisdiction Petitioner's petition for review, holding (1) the stop-time rule applied retroactively to Petitioner; and (2) Petitioner's remaining argument was not exhausted before the agency. View "Aguirre v. Holder" on Justia Law