Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Guatemala, entered the United States without inspection. After the United State initiated removal proceedings against him, Petitioner applied for relief in the form of asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), alleging that he feared torture by guerrilla forces in Guatemala due to his father's military service and work in the civil patrol. The immigration judge (IJ) concluded that Petitioner failed to establish a threshold case for relief. The board of immigration appeals (BIA) affirmed. Nine years later, Petitioner filed a motion to reopen his application for asylum and withholding of removal. The BIA denied Petitioner's motion, finding that he failed to demonstrate a material change in country conditions and failed to establish a prima facie case for asylum. The First Circuit Court of Appeals denied Petitioner's petition for review, holding that the BIA (1) properly concluded that Petitioner failed to establish a material change in country conditions necessary to reopen removal proceedings; and (2) did not err in finding Petitioner failed to establish a prima facie case for asylum. View "Jutus v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner was admitted to the United States as a permanent resident on a conditional basis based on her marriage to a United States citizen. After she divorced, Petitioner's status as a conditional permanent resident was terminated. Petitioner filed two applications for relief six months past the deadline. The immigration judge (IJ) denied the applications, finding, among other things, that Petitioner had abandoned her applications by failing to file them by the deadline. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed on the grounds of abandonment. The First Circuit Court of Appeals denied Petitioner's petition for review, holding (1) the IJ acted within her discretion in finding that Petitioner had abandoned her applications for relief by missing the filing deadline; and (2) because the BIA's and IJ's findings as to abandonment was not an abuse of discretion, the BIA did not abuse its discretion by failing to address Petitioner's other arguments on appeal. View "Moreta v. Holder" on Justia Law

Sunarto Ang and his wife Tuti Erlina, citizens of Indonesia, overstayed their visas and applied to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for asylum. The DHS subsequently charged And and Erlina with removability. Ang and Erlina renewed their application for asylum and applied for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The immigration judge (IJ) rejected the application for asylum. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissed Ang and Erlina's appeal, finding that Ang and Erlina did not suffer past persecution or have a well-founded fear of future persecution. The First Circuit Court of Appeals denied Ang and Erlina's petition for review, holding that substantial evidence supported the conclusion of the IJ and the BIA that Ang and Erlina were not entitled to asylum. View "Ang v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner was a citizen and native of Jamaica who entered the United States as a lawful permanent resident. A decade later, Petitioner pleaded guilty to second-degree larceny in the state of Connecticut. The Department of Homeland Security subsequently initiated removal proceedings against Petitioner, alleging that Petitioner was removable because he had been convicted of an aggravated felony, specifically, a theft offense. Petitioner filed an application for cancellation of removal. The immigration judge ordered Petitioner removed, concluding, among other things, that Connecticut second-degree larceny qualifies as a theft offense. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed. The First Circuit Court of Appeals denied Petitioner's petition for review, holding that the BIA did not err in concluding that larceny in the second degree under Connecticut law qualifies as a theft offense aggravated felony. View "Lecky v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner was a native and citizen of the People's Republic of China. In 2002, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) upheld the denial of Petitioner's application for asylum and withholding of removal. In 2011, Petitioner filed a motion to reopen his removal proceedings, claiming he risked persecution if he returned to China because of his political activity. Petitioner claimed that the ninety-day deadline to file a motion to reopen removal proceedings was inapplicable because his motion was based on changed country conditions in China. The BIA denied Petitioner's motion to reopen as untimely, determining that he had not demonstrated changed country conditions that would exempt his motion from the deadline. The First Circuit Court of Appeals denied Petitioner's petition for review, holding that Petitioner failed to satisfy any of the exceptions to the time limit for a motion to reopen. View "Chen v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioners, Lebanese citizens, were raised Muslim. While visiting the United States in 2005, Petitioners converted to Christianity. When they returned to the Ivory Coast, where they were living at the time, Petitioners received a number of threats, which they attributed to the Muslim population's reaction to their conversion to Christianity. Petitioners subsequently began living in the United States on expired visas, and the United States began removal proceedings against them. Petitioners filed challenged the proceedings, asserting that they had a well-founded fear of future persecution in Lebanon, based on their belief that Lebanon's majority Muslim population would carry out the threats made in the Ivory Coast. The immigration judge (IJ) rejected petitioners' claims, and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) substantial evidence supported the BIA's finding that Petitioners failed to prove they had a well-founded fear of future persecution in Lebanon in order to qualify for asylum; (2) the BIA did not err in rejecting Plaintiffs' claim for withholding of removal; and (3) the Convention Against Torture did not require the BIA to forestall Petitioners' return to Lebanon. View "Darwich v. Holder" on Justia Law

Plaintiff was a Jordanian national who entered the United States illegally. Once Plaintiff was placed in removal proceedings, he married his first cousin, a marriage that lasted one year. Plaintiff subsequently married his second wife. Both marriages were to United States citizens. Plaintiff's second wife filed an I-130 petition on Plaintiff's behalf. The United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) denied the petition, concluding that Plaintiff previously entered into his first marriage for the purpose of evading the immigration laws. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed. Plaintiff and his wife filed an amended complaint in the district court seeking to set aside the BIA's decision. The district court dismissed the action for failure to state a claim. The First Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the judgment of the district court without reaching the merits of the appeal, holding (1) the district court erred in invoking the plausibility standard in deciding that this case did not warrant either discovery or trial, as the plausibility standard does not apply to a complaint for judicial review of a final agency action; and (2) the methodologic error was not harmless where the parties failed to file the administrative record with the court. View "Atieh v. Riordan" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a 42 U.S.C. 1983 action against Defendant, the Secretary of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, alleging that, in retaliation for Plaintiff's anti-regulatory stance, Defendant used his oversight powers to retaliate unlawfully against Plaintiff. The federal district court dismissed the complaint on immunity grounds. At issue before the First Circuit Court of Appeals was the scope and extent of the immunities offered to state officials, such as Defendant, whose duties encompass both prosecutorial and adjudicatory functions. The First Circuit affirmed the district court, holding that, notwithstanding Defendant's dual roles, Defendant was, with one exception, entitled to absolute immunity from Plaintiff's suit. View "Goldstein v. Galvin" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a Pakistani native, fled Pakistan in 1993 as a result of threats against him from a subsidiary of the ruling Pakistan Mulsim League. Petitioner entered the United States as a non-immigrant visitor in 1999 but remained in the country beyond the time authorized. In 2005, Petitioner appeared before the Immigration Judge (IJ), conceded removability, and applied for withholding of removal and Convention Against Torture (CAT) protection. In support of his applications, Petitioner testified to the threats he received, which continued even in his absence. The IJ denied Petitioner's applications. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed. The First Circuit Court of Appeals granted in part and denied part Petitioner's petition for review, holding (1) the Board's withholding-of-removal decision was contrary to the evidence; and(2) the IJ and BIA's CAT rulings were supported by the record. Remanded for further proceedings. View "Javed v. Holder" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs were five limited partnerships that owned multifamily housing rental projects in Maine. Plaintiffs entered into housing assistance payments (HAP) contracts with the Maine State Housing Authority (MaineHousing) in order to participate in the Section 8 program. The program is administered by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) in conjunction with state and local public housing agencies. Landlords participating in the program receive partial rent from their tenants and the remainder of the rent from the relevant public housing agency, who is, in turn, reimbursed by HUD. Payments from state and local agencies to the Section 8 landlords are adjusted periodically according to guidelines promulgated by HUD. In 2009, Plaintiffs sued MaineHousing in federal district court for breach of contract, alleging that MaineHousing had wrongfully refused to grant them certain annual increases in their Section 8 payments. MaineHousing impleaded HUD. The district court granted summary judgment for MaineHousing and HUD. The First Circuit Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that each of the housing assistance payments contracts at issue allowed MaineHousing to withhold automatic annual adjustments on contract rents where MaineHousing determines that further adjustments would result in material differences between contract rents and market rates. View "One & Ken Valley Housing Group v. Me. State Housing Auth." on Justia Law