Justia U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Plaintiffs, husband and wife, filed suit challenging the USCIS's revocation of I-140 visa petitions filed on the husband's behalf. On appeal, plaintiffs challenged the district court's dismissal of their complaint based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court concluded that the district court erred in dismissing plaintiffs' complaint for lack of constitutional standing where the regulatory definition of "affected party" does not preclude the beneficiary from having standing in the district court, as it relates to who has the ability to challenge the administrative denial of a petition, and under the test for constitutional standing, plaintiffs suffered an injury in fact from the revocation of the visa petitions. In regards to prudential standing, the court concluded that the husband fell within the zone of interests and may challenge the visa petition revocation. The court also concluded that the district court erred in dismissing plaintiffs' complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) because the complaint raises a question of law. Accordingly, the court vacated and remanded for further proceedings. View "Kurapati, et al. v. USCIS, et al." on Justia Law

Petitioner filed a petition challenging airport screening procedures two years after the TSA deployed the screening procedures in airports nationwide. The court concluded that the Supreme Court's decision in Henderson v. Shinseki and another en banc decision by the Court make clear that the 60-day deadline for filing a petition in the court of appeals under 49 U.S.C. 46110(a) is not "jurisdictional," but is instead a claim-processing rule. In this case, even though petitioner's delay in filing his petition does not defeat the court's jurisdiction, his petition is nevertheless untimely because no reasonable ground excused his delay in filing. Therefore, the court dismissed the petition as untimely and, in the alternative, denied the petition on the merits where the screening procedures require only a reasonable administrative search that does not violate the Fourth Amendment. Further, the court granted a motion to seal filed by the Administration. View "Corbett v. Transportation Security Admin." on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native of Sri Lanka, sought review of his recent order of removal and an earlier order of removal. The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to review the earlier order where the order was final and petitioner declined to pursue a timely petition for its review, as well as failed to exhaust his earlier arguments in his second appeal to the Board. In regards to the recent order, at issue was whether silence in a report of the Department of State about torture of asylum seekers on return to an alien's home country may rebut affirmative evidence of that torture presented by the alien. The court concluded that the silence of a State Department report cannot, without more, rebut the affirmative evidence petitioner presented. Accordingly, the court vacated the Board's order and remanded for further proceedings. View "Gaksakuman v. U.S. Attorney General" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction and sentence for being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition. The court concluded that the district court did not err in applying the fifteen-year mandatory minimum sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. 924(e)(1), where his prior burglary offense qualified as a violent felony under the ACCA's residual clause regardless of whether they were based on his "entering" or "remaining in" the dwellings at issue, and where defendant has failed to show that the district court erred in concluding that his prior convictions were for offenses "committed on occasions different from one another." Finally, the district court did not err in denying defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal where the government produced sufficient evidence to demonstrate the minimal nexus between the firearm and ammunition defendant possessed and interstate commerce. Therefore, the jurisdiction element of section 922(g) was satisfied and that statute was not unconstitutionally applied to defendant's conduct. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Kirk" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, a class of firefighters whose pension contribution rate was raised from 6% to 8.5%, filed suit alleging that the City's actions impaired the terms of their employment contracts in violation of the United States Constitution and the Alabama Constitution. The district court dismissed the complaint for failure to demonstrate that any contractual right had been impaired. The court concluded that plaintiffs have no basis upon which to challenge a violation of the Contract Clause where, without passing any law, the City, at bottom, was doing nothing different from what a private party does. The City was free to amend the employee contribution rate without constitutional consequence. Even assuming the existence of a contractual provision not to raise the employee contribution rate, plaintiffs still cannot succeed on their Contract Clause challenge because, at most, the City has breached a contract, not impaired one. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Taylor, et al. v. City of Gadsden, et al." on Justia Law

Officers of the Orange County Sheriff's Office (OCSO) and representatives from the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation (DBPR) conducted an unannounced, warrantless inspection of a barbershop with the intent of discovering violations of state licensing laws. Plaintiffs, who were subject to the "administrative inspection," filed suit alleging that the officers violated their Fourth Amendment rights to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. At issue was whether the district court's conclusion that two certain government officials were not entitled to qualified immunity. The court affirmed the judgment of the district court where it has long been clearly established that a warrantless administrative inspection must be narrowly tailored to the administrative need that justifies it. In this case, the manner in which the inspection was undertaken was unreasonable from its inception and was, in fact, a search. View "Berry, et al. v. Leslie, et al." on Justia Law

Allene Hughes died of traumatic brain injury after she was involved in a collision with a Mack truck. Plaintiff, Allene's mother and the administratrix of her estate, filed suit against Kia, alleging that Kia's failure to equip Allene's vehicle with a fuel shut-off switch led to Allene's death. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the testimony of plaintiff's causation expert where the district court could reasonably question the reliability of the expert's ultimate opinion given the vague manner in which the expert described his methodology coupled with his inability to express an opinion about how the various impacts would have affected Allene. The court also concluded that the district court did not improperly grant summary judgment for Kia where plaintiff failed to create a genuine issue of material fact with respect to actual causation. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Hughes v. Kia Motors Corp., et al." on Justia Law

Petitioner sought review of a decision awarding benefits to a miner's widow under the Black Lung Benefits Act, 30 U.S.C. 901 et seq. The court found, after reviewing petitioner's arguments and the relevant law, that nothing precludes a new benefits claim by a survivor whose previous application was denied under the pre-Affordable Care Act (ACA), Pub. L. No. 111-148, section 1556, 124 Stat. 119, 260, version of the Black Lung Benefits Act. Thus, the court held that a survivor who filed a claim before January 1, 2005 may submit a new claim that must be adjudicated under the post-ACA statutory provisions. The court denied the petition for review and affirmed the award of benefits. View "Jim Walter Resources, Inc. v. Director, OWCP, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, Marianne and Daniel Chapman, filed a products liability suit against P&G after Marianne developed neurological symptoms that the Chapmans maintain were caused by zinc-induced, copper-deficiency myelopathy (CDM) from using Fixodent denture adhesive. On appeal, plaintiffs challenged the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of P&G. The court concluded that the district judge properly determined that Fixodent, containing zinc, was in the McClain v. Metabolife Int'l, Inc. category two analysis involving toxic substances and conducted the requisite Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., review of proffered expert testimony. The court also concluded that the district judge, as gatekeeper of the evidence presented to the jury, did not abuse her discretion or commit manifest injustice by precluding the testimonies of Dr. Brewer, Dr. Lautenbach, and Dr. Landolph as experts on general causation; in precluding Dr. Greenberg's expert testimony regarding the specific causation of Marianne's CDM; and in granting P&G's motions preventing the testimonies of three additional plaintiffs' experts. Because plaintiffs' general and specific-causation-expert testimony was inadmissible at trial, plaintiffs failed to prove that Fixodent caused Marianne's CDM. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to P&G. View "Chapman, et al. v. The Procter & Gamble Dist., et al." on Justia Law

Petitioner was convicted of conspiracy to violate the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970 (OCCA) in violation of 18 U.S.C. 371 and one count of violating the OCCA through destruction by fire in violation of 18 U.S.C. 844(i). On appeal, petitioner challenged pro se the district court's dismissal for lack of jurisdiction his 28 U.S.C. 2241 habeas corpus petition challenging his convictions and total sentence of life imprisonment. The court concluded that petitioner provided no argument as to why either of his claims satisfied the savings clause. Because binding Fifth Circuit precedent at the time of his sentencing actually supported his claim that he should not have been sentenced to life imprisonment, petitioner cannot show that, at the time of his sentence or any other relevant time, circuit precedent squarely foreclosed his claim. Likewise, petitioner's ineffective assistance of counsel claim related to counsel's advice as to a guilty plea failed. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Samak v. FCI Coleman Medium Warden" on Justia Law