Block on Trump's Asylum Ban Upheld by Supreme Court
Massie v. U.S. Dep't of Hous. & Urban Dev., 09-1087, involved a class action lawsuit against the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), seeking to compel action that they claim was unlawfully withheld by HUD. In reversing the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of HUD, the court held that section 311 did apply to HUD's management and disposition of the property at issue in this case. The court also held that HUD failed to make a determination that the property was not feasible for continued assistance and therefore failed to comply with the terms of section 311. Lastly, the grant of summary judgment on the issue of the cause of the displacement of the tenants is improper, and the matter is remanded for additional fact-finding on the issues of whether the tenants were displaced due to a federally financed project and, if so, whether the tenants who were entitled to relocation assistance at Uniform Relocation Act (URA) levels received such assistance.
Huang v. U.S. Attorney General, 09-2437, concerned a Chinese citizen's petition for review of a BIA's reversal of IJ's grant of asylum. In granting the petition, the court held that, the BIA's final order of removal is vacated and remanded as the BIA's decision does not indicate that a full review took place in this case. The court vacated the BIA's denial of the motion to remand with respect to the certification.
Gov't of the Virgin Islands v. Martinez, 08-2694, concerned a challenge to a conviction of defendant for kidnapping for rape and a thirty-year sentence. In affirming, the court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the kidnapping for rape conviction, and that any Doyle violation in this case was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Lastly, the court rejected defendant's remaining contentions as meritless.
Gov't of the Virgin Islands v. Lewis, 09-3245, concerned a challenge to a conviction of defendant for unlawful possession of a firearm and a fifteen-year sentence. In affirming, the court held that defendant did not meet his burden of establishing that he was entitled to a justification instruction, and as such, the trial court's failure to provide a justification instruction was not error. Also, the district court's order dismissing defendant's second Strickland claim is affirmed, without prejudice to defendant's ability to assert it in a collateral proceeding.