Correspondent
Breaking news correspondent, covers late-night developments and emergency rulings.
The D.C. Circuit affirmed summary judgment for WMATA, holding that a passenger must present expert testimony to prove the standard of care for train operators. The court ruled that the duty to warn passengers during berthing adjustments is beyond the common knowledge of lay jurors.
The Ninth Circuit denied Rodolfo Chávez Ferreira's petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' decision to deny cancellation of removal. The court held that substantial evidence supported the agency's finding that Ferreira's lawful permanent resident parents would not suffer the exceptional and extremely unusual hardship required by law.
The Fifth Circuit affirmed a district court order requiring plaintiffs to pay approximately $37,683 in costs to prevailing defendants despite the plaintiffs' claim of indigency. The court held that a disparity in financial resources between the parties is insufficient on its own to overcome the presumption that costs should be awarded to the prevailing party under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(1).
The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of multiple emergency motions filed by pro se appellant Dora L. Adkins, finding no reversible error in the lower court's rulings. Citing a pattern of numerous meritless appeals, the court ordered Adkins to show cause why it should not impose a prefiling injunction or monetary sanctions for abusing the judicial process.
The Eleventh Circuit granted summary affirmance of the Board of Immigration Appeals' denial of asylum and related relief to a Haitian family. The court held that the petitioners abandoned key arguments on appeal and failed to prove that the BIA abused its discretion in finding their claims waived.
The Federal Circuit affirmed the denial of special monthly compensation for a veteran rated totally disabled based on individual unemployability. The court held that 38 U.S.C. § 1114(s) requires a single service-connected disability rated as total, not a combination of disabilities resulting in unemployability.
The Ninth Circuit denied a petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals decision denying asylum to a Russian citizen. The court held that substantial evidence supported the agency's finding that the petitioner failed to establish past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution.
The Federal Circuit affirmed the removal of a federal deportation officer who concealed a loaded firearm during a domestic altercation and bit his wife to escape. The court held that the agency properly found the conduct unbecoming of an officer and that the lack of candor charges were supported by substantial evidence.
The Third Circuit dismissed a petition for review because the Board of Immigration Appeals denied a motion to reopen based on unfettered discretion regarding untimeliness. The court found no settled course of adjudication or incorrect legal premise existed to permit judicial review of this discretionary decision.
The Fifth Circuit denied a petition for review of a BIA order denying cancellation of removal, holding that jurisdiction is barred over factual hardship findings. The court further ruled that aliens possess no due process rights regarding discretionary relief and that the petitioner failed to meet the legal standard for exceptional and extremely unusual hardship.
