Block on Trump's Asylum Ban Upheld by Supreme Court
Vilela v. Holder, 10-1037, concerned a Brazilian citizen's petition for review of a BIA's final order of removal. In denying the petition, the court held that substantial evidence supported the IJ's and BIA's conclusions that petitioner failed to establish a nexus between the harm he had suffered and any protected ground, and failed to establish that what he suffered rose to the level of persecution.
Drew v. MacEachern, 09-1571, concerned a challenge to the district court's dismissal of defendant's request for habeas relief for lack of jurisdiction. In affirming, the court held that defendant's habeas petition is time-barred under section 2244(d)(1)(A) as his initial gatekeeper petition was not pending within the meaning of section 2244(d)(2) as of April 24, 1997 and he is not entitled to equitable tolling.
Correia v. Feeney, 09-2004, concerned a challenge to a denial of plaintiff's motion for a new trial following a jury verdict in favor of the defendant, in the plaintiff's suit against a police sergeant for violating his civil rights by means of false arrest and the use of excessive force. In affirming, the court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied the motion for a new trial as it was reasonable for the district court to conclude that the verdict was not clearly against the weight of the evidence. The court also held that the district court's reply to the jury's question was not misleading, unduly complicating, or incorrect as a matter of law, nor did it adversely affect plaintiff's substantial rights. And lastly, plaintiff cannot establish that any error in allowing a cross examination, or some portion of it, was sufficiently grave to satisfy plain error review.
Chiang v. MBNA, 09-2323, concerned a challenge to the district court's grant of defendant's motion for summary judgment, in plaintiff's suit against his credit card company claiming that the company, as a furnisher of credit information, violated section 1681s-2(b)(1) by failing to follow up on disputed delinquent payments with a further investigation. In affirming the judgment, the court held that there is no evidence that a credit reporting agency, rather than just plaintiff himself, had ever contacted defendant concerning his objections.