Justia U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

GMM appealed the district court's decision to uphold a financial decision and order of the DOL ARB that found GMM violated several provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq., relating to the H-1B visa program. GMM also appealed the award of damages and interest to some GMM workers. The court found that the Secretary’s expansive understanding of his investigatory authority is inconsistent with the plain language and structure of section 1182(n). The court concluded that the Secretary’s authority to conduct an initial investigation under section 1182(n)(2)(A) is based upon the Secretary finding reasonable cause to believe the employer’s specific misconduct as alleged in the complaint violates the INA. That reasonable-cause finding limits the scope of the initial investigation. In this case, the Secretary’s current standard practice has the practical effect of converting every aggrieved-party complaint into a comprehensive compliance review without the procedural safeguards of section 1182(n)(2)(G)(i). Because the ARB’s findings of violations and the resulting awards were based entirely on the Secretary’s unauthorized investigation of matters other than the allegation GMM penalized the complainant for quitting before her contract ran out, the awards cannot stand. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "Greater MO Medical P.C.P. v. Perez" on Justia Law

BLB filed suit against Jet Linx and Jamie Walker for damages arising from breach of contract. Jet Linx counterclaimed. The district court awarded damages to both parties and both parties appealed. The court concluded that cost-of-repair damages as argued by BLB would result in windfall and, therefore, in economic waste, a result the district court properly avoided. The court further concluded that diminution in value provides the appropriate measure of damages. Finally, the district court did not err in finding that BLB failed to prove its damages with sufficient certainty because BLB did not offer evidence of the reduced value of either airplane resulting from Jet Linx’s failure to provide a complete set of maintenance records and parts tags. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's judgment for Jet Linx. View "BLB Aviation South Carolina v. Jet Linx Aviation, LLC" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit against the Arkansas State Board of Dental Examiners's executive director and members of the Board, alleging that the Board’s enforcement of the Arkansas Dental Practice Act, Ark. Code Ann. 17-82-305(g)(2), violates his rights under the Federal Constitution. The district court concluded that it should abstain from deciding the case pursuant to the doctrine established by Railroad Commission of Texas v. Pullman Co. The court concluded that, because there is no ambiguity and thus no unsettled question of state law, Pullman abstention is not appropriate here. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for the district court to consider the arguments in the first instance. View "Burris v. Cobb" on Justia Law

Petitioners, natives and citizens of Gambia, petitioned for review of the BIA's orders affirming the IJ's denial of their applications for waiver of inadmissibility and denying their motions to remand. The court concluded that it does not have jurisdiction to review the discretionary denial of waiver of inadmissibility and dismissed as to this issue. The court concluded that, because petitioners engaged in an extensive fraudulent scheme, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in determining that the evidence they presented was not credible and thus did not establish a prima facie case of eligibility for asylum. Further, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in determining that the information contained in the letters at issue was not previously unavailable. Accordingly, the court denied the petitions. View "Njie v. Lynch" on Justia Law

This appeal stems from a dispute regarding the continued validity of an oil and gas lease covering land in Williams County, North Dakota. Appellants challenged the district court's grant of Northern Oil's and Limsco's motions for summary judgment. The court found Northern Oil and Limsco’s interpretation more persuasive and thus adopted their position that the Pugh clause in the lease divides the lease at PLSS-section boundaries. The court agreed with the district court that the lease remains valid because production from other areas in Section 3 maintains the lease as to the entire section and affirmed the judgment. View "Northern Oil and Gas, Inc. v. Moen" on Justia Law

USCIS determined that because Juan Reyes-Soto had violated South Carolina Code 16-23-410, South Carolina’s “Pointing firearm at another person” statute, he had committed an aggravated felony and thus could not establish “good moral character.” The district court affirmed. The court held that section 16-23-410 cannot be violated without the “threatened use of physical force against the person or property of another.” Thus, violation of section 16-23-410 is categorically a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. 16(a) and constitutes an aggravated felony under 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(F). Because Reyes-Soto has an aggravated felony conviction, he is not considered to be “a person of good moral character” as required by section 1427(a), and the district court properly denied his petition for naturalization. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Reyes-Soto v. Lynch" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction and sentence for distributing cocaine and other offenses. The court held that district courts and counsel should take appropriate measures to minimize the problems that may arise from dual-role testimony by a case agent. Affording proper deference to the district court, the court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting a case agent's expert testimony in this case. The court also concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion by applying a three-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. 3B1.1(b) because defendant was a manager-supervisor; the district court did not clearly err in its drug quantity calculation; and the sentence was substantively reasonable where the district court gave a reasoned explanation under the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Moralez" on Justia Law

The government filed suit against Dico to recover damages for cleanup costs after Dico sold buildings to SIM, which were then torn down and stored in an open field where PCBs were later found. The government alleged that Dico violated the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. 9607(a)(3), and the EPA order governing use of the buildings at issue. The district court found Dico liable for both violations. The court reversed and vacated the district court's summary judgment order holding Dico "arranged" for disposal of hazardous materials as a matter of law where the evidence does not demonstrate that Dico was merely trying to get rid of a hazardous substance. The fact that some parts from the buildings were worthless after disassembly does not necessarily transform a potentially legitimate sale of the buildings in which Dico would receive some commercial value into a ploy to simply get rid of the buildings just to dispose of the hazardous substance. The court vacated the district court's order with respect to any response costs associated with the issue of "arranger" liability. The court also reversed the award of punitive damages because the Fund did not incur any costs as a result of Dico's violation of the EPA Order. The court affirmed in all other respects. View "United States v. Dico, Inc." on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to illegal reentry after removal and subsequently appealed his sentence. The district court determined that defendant's prior conviction for domestic assault was a felony, which increased the statutory maximum sentence to ten years in prison, and resulted in an advisory guidelines range of 15 to 21 months in prison. The district court varied upwards and sentenced defendant to 48 months in prison. The court concluded that the district court did not commit clear error in sentencing defendant and the court rejected defendant's claim that the district court based its sentence on clearly erroneous facts. The court further concluded that the district court properly considered defendant's employment history as information concerning the background, character and conduct of the defendant; and defendant's sentence is substantively reasonable where the district court weighed the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors, including work history and failure to support his children, against the mitigating factors urged by defendant, as well as prior convictions. Accordingly, the court affirmed the sentence. View "United States v. Abrica-Sanchez" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, five female Drug Court participants, filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, seeking damages for injuries resulting from sexual abuse by Scott Edwards, a Lieutenant in the Lincoln County Sheriff’s Department, while he acted as “tracker” for the Drug Court. The district court granted Defendant Graham-Thompson qualified immunity and denied Defendant Krigbaum, the County Sheriff, qualified immunity. Krigbaum appealed. The court reversed the denial of qualified immunity on Krigbaum, concluding that he did not have notice of a pattern of conduct by Edwards that violated a clearly established constitutional right; plaintiffs presented no evidence that Krigbaum had knowledge of sexual misconduct by Edwards that would create an inference Krigbaum turned a blind eye to or consciously disregarded a substantial risk of the constitutional harm Edwards was causing - conscience-shocking violations of plaintiffs’ substantive due process rights by a member of the Sheriff’s Department performing duties for the Drug Court; and the policy in question was designed to protect persons and did not “give rise to unconstitutional conditions.” View "S.M. v. Krigbaum" on Justia Law