Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

The National Labor Relations Board (Board) issued an order ruling that a Massachusetts car dealership was liable for unfair labor practices. The dealership petitioned for review, arguing that the Board’s findings were not supported by substantial evidence and that the Board applied its precedents arbitrarily and capriciously. The Board, in turn, petitioned for enforcement of its order. The Supreme Court denied the dealership’s petition for review and granted the Board’s petition for enforcement, holding that the Board’s rulings were supported by substantial evidence and by reasoning that was not arbitrary and capricious. View "Boch Imports Inc. v. Nat’l Labor Relations Bd." on Justia Law

In 2013, Plaintiff, a participant in the Section 8 Federal Housing Choice Voucher Program, listed among her assets a trust that had been established in 2010 to hold Plaintiff's proceeds from a series of tort settlements. The Brookline Housing Authority (BHA) subsequently determined that Plaintiff was “over-income” for continued participation in the Program, as locally administered by the BHA. Plaintiff appealed, requesting that the BHA exclude at least some of these trust disbursements from its income calculation in reasonable accommodation of her disability. The BHA reaffirmed its determination. Thereafter, Plaintiff sued, alleging that the BHA had violated state and federal law by incorrectly calculating her income under the relevant federal regulations and by engaging in disability-based discrimination. The district court ruled in favor of BHA. The First Circuit (1) reversed the district court’s ruling on Plaintiff’s 42 U.S.C. 1983 claim brought under the Housing Act, holding that the BHA misconstrued federal regulations in calculating Plaintiff’s income; (2) vacated the district court’s ruling on Plaintiff’s state and federal discrimination claims and remanded with instructions to dismiss those claims as moot; and (3) affirmed the district court’s denial of Plaintiff’s remaining claims. Remanded. View "DeCambre v. Brookline Housing Auth." on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native of St. Vincent and the Grenadines, overstayed her visa and was subjected to removal proceedings. Petitioner applied for special rule cancellation of removal for battered spouses, a relief provision enacted pursuant to the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). An immigration judge (IJ) denied the application on the ground that Petitioner’s testimony was unreliable and non-credible with respect to her abuse. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed on the basis that a good faith marriage must be shown before an applicant may be eligible for VAWA special rule cancellation of removal. The First Circuit vacated the denial of Petitioner’s application for VAWA special-rule cancellation of removal, holding that the BIA’s failure to adequately explain its decision that the operative statute requires an alien to prove a good faith marriage as an eligibility requirement for VAWA special rule cancellation of removal precluded meaningful judicial review in this case. Remanded. View "Tillery v. Lynch" on Justia Law

In 2009, an Immigration Judge (IJ) entered an order of removal of Petitioner, a native and citizen of the Dominican Republic. In 2012, Petitioner reentered the United States unlawfully. Thereafter, Petitioner was charged with criminal unlawful reentry. In 2013, Petitioner moved to reopen, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel during the 2009 removal proceedings. The IJ denied the motion to reopen, concluding (1) the motion was time and number barred, and (2) the ineffective assistance of counsel claim did not comply with the requirements enumerated in Matter of Lozada. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, which the BIA denied. Petitioner then petitioned for judicial review. The First Circuit dismissed Petitioner’s petition for judicial review in part for want of jurisdiction and otherwise denied it, holding (1) because Petitioner never filed a timely petition for judicial review of the BIA’s denial of his motion to reopen, the Court lacked jurisdiction to review that portion of Petitioner’s motion; and (2) the BIA did not err in denying Petitioner’s motion to reconsider. View "Garcia v. Lynch" on Justia Law

John Fanning founded Jerk LLC (Jerk) and Jerk.com in 2009. From 2009 to 2014, Jerk operated Jerk.com. In 2014, the Federal Trade Commission (Commission) filed an administrative complaint charging Jerk and Fanning with engaging in deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce in violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act. The Commission entered a summary decision finding Fanning personally liable for misrepresentations contained on Jerk.com. Fanning petitioned for review. The First Circuit (1) affirmed the Commission’s finding of liability and the recordkeeping provisions and order acknowledgement requirement of the Commission’s remedial order; but (2) vacated Fanning’s compliance monitoring provisions, holding that these provisions were overbroad and not reasonably related to Fanning’s violation. View "Fanning v. Fed. Trade Comm'n" on Justia Law

When Carlo Gimenez Bianco (Gimenez) refused to remove his emotional support dog from his condominium unit in violation of the Castillo Condominium Association’s “no pets” bylaw, the Association forced Gimenez to vacate and sell the unit. Gimenez brought a complaint of disability discrimination with the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), which filed a charge of discrimination against the Association. An administrative law judge (ALJ) issued a recommended decision concluding that the Association had not violated the Fair Housing Act. The Secretary of HUD set aside the ALJ’s recommended decision and found the Association liable for discrimination. On remand, the ALJ issued a recommended decision proposing to award Gimenez $3,000 in emotional distress damages and assessed a $2,000 civil penalty against the Association. The Secretary increased the proposed award of emotional distress damages to $20,000 and increased the civil penalty to $16,000. The First Circuit denied the Association’s petition for review and granted the Secretary’s cross-petition for enforcement of his order, holding (1) the Secretary’s final order was supported by substantial evidence in the record; (2) the ALJ did not err in refusing to apply res judicata to pretermit Gimenez’s HUD charge; and (3) the Secretary’s final order was not tainted by procedural error. View "Castillo Condo. Ass’n v. U.S. Dep’t of Housing & Urban Dev." on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Colombia, sought to register permanent residence or adjust status. In support of his application, he submitted evidence, including a visa and Form I-94, that he was legally admitted to the United States when he was thirteen years old. The United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) denied his application on the basis that the documents were fraudulent. Petitioner was then placed in removal proceedings. Emphasizing his young age at the time of his alleged admission, Petitioner asserted that he did not know that his documents were fraudulent. An immigration judge (IJ) determined that Petitioner had failed to establish that he was lawfully present in the United States following a prior admission. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed. The First Circuit denied Petitioner’s petition for review, holding (1) the courts below did not err in their determinations that Petitioner’s testimony before the IJ was not credible; and (2) the BIA did not err by summarily affirming the IJ’s decision to give no weight to Petitioner’s favorable polygraph test. View "Acosta v. Lynch" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Honduras who entered the United States illegally, conceded removability but requested cancellation of removal. An immigration judge held that Petitioner was not eligible for cancellation of removal because he had failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that his Maine assault conviction was not a “crime of domestic violence.” The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed. The First Circuit initially denied Petitioner’s petition for review. Petitioner then petitioned for rehearing, presenting a developed argument based on the Supreme Court’s decision in Moncrieffe v. Holder. The First Circuit granted the petition, vacated the BIA’s decision, and remanded, holding that Moncrieffe controls in this case and that, in accordance with Moncrieffe, Petitioner was not convicted of a “crime of violence.” View "Sauceda v. Lynch" on Justia Law

In 1994, Petitioner crossed the U.S.-Mexican border in violation of United States law. The day after he entered the country, Petitioner was served an Order to Show Cause charging him as being deportable. An Immigration Judge (IJ) found Petitioner deportable. Petitioner later filed a second motion to reopen the deportation proceedings. The motion was granted. In 2014, Petitioner applied for suspension of deportation and voluntary departure, arguing that he was eligible for suspension of deportation because the law in effect in 1994 required a noncitizen to be continuously physically present in the United States for seven years before applying for suspension of deportation and that he easily met this requirement. An IJ concluded that the so-called “stop-time” rule applied retroactively to Petitioner because his deportation proceedings remained pending on the date the stop-time rule went into effect and that the stop-time rule cut off Petitioner’s physical presence after one day, rendering him ineligible for suspension of deportation. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissed Petitioner’s appeal. The First Circuit denied Petitioner’s petition for review, holding that the BIA’s interpretation of the stop-time rule was reasonable and that the BIA properly applied the stop-time rule to Petitioner. View "Santos-Quiroa v. Lynch" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Pakistan, was ordered removed in 2002. After Petitioner unsuccessfully appealed his removal to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), Petitioner filed a motion to reconsider, which the BIA rejected. More than a decade later, Petitioner filed a second motion to reconsider. The BIA denied that motion as well. The First Circuit denied Petitioner’s petition for review of the BIA’s denial of Petitioner’s second motion to reconsider, holding that the BIA did not err in concluding that the circumstances of Petitioner’s case were not sufficiently extraordinary to warrant an equitable exception to the time and number bars applicable to Petitioner’s motion. View "Omar v. Lynch" on Justia Law