Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

After a merger in 1995, William and Patricia Cavallaro received 38 shares of stock in Camelot, the merged company. Their three sons received 54 shares each. When Camelot was subsequently acquired, the Cavallaros received a total of $10,830,000, and each son received $15,390,000. The IRS issued notices of deficiency to the Cavallaros for tax year 1995, determining that Camelot had a pre-merger value of $0 and that when the merger occurred, William and Patricia each made a taxable gift of $23,085,000 to their sons. Therefore, each of the Cavallaros incurred an increase in tax liability in the amount of $12,696,750. The Tax Court ultimately concluded that William owed $7,652,980 and that Patricia owed $8,009,202. The Cavallaros appealed, arguing that the Tax Court erred by failing to shift the burden of proof to the Commissioner. The First Circuit affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded, holding (1) the Tax Court correctly determined that the burden of proof was on the Cavallaros; but (2) the Tax Court misstated the nature of the Cavallaros’ burden of proof. Remanded. View "Cavallaro v. Koskinen" on Justia Law

Petitioner filed an application for a good-faith-marriage waiver of the joint-filing requirement for a Petition to Remove Conditions on Residence (Form I-751 waiver) but made a series of representations to advance her application. The United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) denied Petitioner’s Form I-751 waiver application. An Immigration Judge (IJ) denied Petitioner’s application for review and granted Petitioner voluntary departure, finding that Petitioner’s various misrepresentations to USCIS undermined the credibility of her testimony. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed, agreeing with the IJ that, in light of Petitioner’s misrepresentations, the evidence was insufficient to meet her burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that she had entered into a good-faith marriage. The First Circuit denied Petitioner’s petition for review, holding that nothing Petitioner argued on appeal compelled the Court to reverse the BIA’s decision. View "Quezada-Caraballo v. Lynch" on Justia Law

The consolidated appeals in this case involved a dispute between the Secretary of Health and Human Services and a group of Maine hospitals about certain payments - called disproportionate share payments (DSH payments) - the hospitals had received in reimbursement from the federal government for charity care for fiscal years dating as far back as 1993. Generally speaking, the more low-income patients a hospital services, the higher the hospital’s DSH payment. In this case, the Secretary maintained that the Hospitals were overinclusive in their DSH payment calculations. An intermediary reassessed the DSH payments and recouped from the Hospitals approximately $22 million in alleged overpayments. The Provider Reimbursement Review Board, in turn, ordered the intermediary to restore approximately $17 million to the Hospitals. The Secretary reversed. The Hospitals sought judicial review, but neither side was satisfied with the district court’s ruling. On appeal, the First Circuit reversed in part and affirmed in part, holding (1) the Secretary properly reopened the disputed years and adequately demonstrated that the Hospitals had received substantial overpayments of DSH funds; and (2) the Hospitals’ defenses to repayment were unavailing. View "Maine Medical Center v. Burwell" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a Ugandan national, was subjected to removal proceedings. Petitioner conceded removability and applied for asylum and withholding of removal. An immigration judge denied Petitioner’s application for asylum and withholding of removal, concluding that no changed or extraordinary circumstances could justify Petitioner’s thirteen-year delay in seeking asylum and that Petitioner failed to establish his eligibility for withholding of removal. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissed Petitioner’s appeal. Thereafter, Petitioner moved to reopen removal proceedings based on newly discovered evidence. The BIA denied the motion to reopen, concluding that Petitioner failed to satisfy the requirements for reopening. The First Circuit denied Petitioner’s petition for judicial review, holding that the BIA did not commit an error of law or exercise its judgment in an arbitrary, capricious, or irrational manner. View "Bbale v. Lynch" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Colombia, was charged as removable. In response, Petitioner sought asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the United Nations Convention Against Torture (CAT). The Immigration Judge (IJ) denied Petitioner’s claims. Thereafter, Petitioner voluntarily returned to Colombia. Petitioner later re-entered the United States and filed a motion to reopen removal proceedings. The IJ denied Petitioner’s motion to reopen, finding that Petitioner had failed to establish an exception to the time limitations on motions to reopen. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed. The First Circuit denied Petitioner’s petition for review, holding (1) the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Petitioner’s asylum claim, and therefore, Petitioner’s counterpart claim for withholding also necessarily failed; and (2) Petitioner abandoned her CAT claim. View "Giraldo-Pabon v. Lynch" on Justia Law

The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMSCA) maintains a database of inspection history and safety records relating to commercial motor vehicle operators. Appellants, a group of commercial motor vehicle operators, brought suit against the FMSCA and the Department of Transportation, arguing that the potential disclosure to employers of “non-serious” driver-related safety records contained in the database violates the Privacy Act. The district court granted the FMCSA’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, concluding that 49 U.S.C. 31150 was ambiguous as to the agency’s authority to include non-serious driver-related safety violations in the database and, further, that the agency’s interpretation of section 31150 was a reasonable and permissible construction of the statute and was entitled to Chevron deference. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) section 31150 is ambiguous as to the question of non-serious driver-related safety violations; and (2) the agency’s interpretation of the statute is not arbitrary, capricious, or manifestly contrary to the statute. View "Flock v. United States Department of Transportation" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a Peruvian national, became a lawful conditional resident of the United States in 2001 at age eleven. The government initiated removal proceedings against Petitioner in 2007. After a serious of mistakes on the part of two lawyers, Petitioner failed to timely appear at his removal proceeding, and the immigration judge (IJ) entered an order of removal in absentia. Petitioner moved to reopen his immigration case, explaining that his first two attorneys had provided ineffective assistance of counsel and that this deficient representation had prevented him from attaining legal permanent resident status. The IJ agreed that Petitioner had received ineffective assistance of counsel but that Petitioner’s failure to be appear could not be attributed to his lawyers’ inadequacies. The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed. The First Circuit reversed, holding that the BIA abused its discretion in denying the motion to reopen, as the failures of Petitioner’s lawyers, taken together, constituted exceptional circumstances sufficient to grant Petitioner’s motion. View "Murillo-Robles v. Lynch" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Haiti, sought asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the United Nations Convention Against Torture (CAT). In his asylum application, Petitioner claimed that he had suffered past persecution and feared future persecution because of his work as a grassroots leader in a Haitian political party. The Immigration Judge (IJ) denied Petitioner’s claims for relief, finding that Petitioner’s testimony lacked credibility and, thus, Petitioner was unable to establish eligibility for relief. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) adopted and affirmed the IJ’s decision. The First Circuit denied Petitioner’s petition for review, holding (1) substantial evidence supported the agency’s asylum determination; and (2) Petitioner waived his withholding of removal and CAT claims. View "Legal v. Lynch" on Justia Law

At issue in this dispute was a piece of real estate, called Long Wharf, that juts into Boston Harbor. The Boston Redevelopment Authority (BRA) wished to develop the Long Wharf pavilion, which stands at the northern side of the Wharf, for commercial purposes, but the National Park Service (NPS) refused to grant the BRA permission to do so on the ground that the land remain open for recreational use. The BRA sued NPS and the Secretary of the Interior under the Land and Water Conservation Funds Act. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the decision of the NPS was supported by substantial evidence and was neither arbitrary nor capricious. View "Boston Redevelopment Auth. v. Nat'l Park Serv." on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of China, was charged as removable based on allegations that Petitioner had misrepresented himself as a Japanese citizen and national. An Immigration Judge (IJ) sustained the charge of removability. After a flurry of procedural activity, a second IJ found that Petitioner was removable as charged. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed, concluding that Petitioner procured an immigration benefit through willful misrepresentation. The First Circuit denied Petitioner’s petition for review, holding that there was substantial evidence to support the finding that Petitioner deliberately and voluntarily used a fraudulent Japanese passport to gain entry into the United States. View "Li v. Lynch" on Justia Law