Decisions in Immigration, Civil Rights, and Criminal Matters

By FindLaw Staff on April 15, 2010 | Last updated on March 21, 2019

Mendez-Barrera, No. 09-1903, concerned a petition for review, by a native and citizen of El Salvador, BIA's denial of her application for asylum and related relief.  In denying her petition, the court held that the claim that she was persecuted on account of her membership in a particular social group fails as substantial evidence supports the BIA's determination that the putative social group was not legally cognizable.  For similar reasons, petitioner's claim for withholding of removal necessarily fails as she failed to carry her burden of persuasion for the asylum claim. Lastly, the BIA did not err in denying petitioner's CAT claim.

Anacassus v. Holder No. 09-1463, also concerned a petition for review a BIA's denial of a Haitian citizen's application for asylum and related relief.  In denying the petition, the court held that substantial evidence supports the conclusion that petitioner's only credible, alleged incident of persecution was insufficient for purposes of establishing either past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution if returned to Haiti. 

In US. v. Ellison, No. 09-1234, the court faced a challenge to district court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress statements made to police regarding a robbery, while being held at a county jail charged with beating his ex-girlfriend.  In rejecting defendant's Miranda claim, the court affirmed the robbery conviction and district court's denial of motion to suppress as there is nothing in the facts of the case that would be likely to create the atmosphere of coercion subject to Miranda concern. 

Foley v. Kiely, No. 09-1250, involved plaintiff's 42 U.S.C. section 1983 claim against Massachusetts State Troopers and a police sergeant claiming he was unconstitutionally seized and arrested by the state troopers.  In affirming the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants, the court concluded that the troopers did not violate plaintiff's constitutional rights in detaining and subsequently arresting him. 

Related Resources:

Copied to clipboard