[PUBLISHED] [Erickson, Author, with Benton and Grasz, Circuit Judges] Petition for Review - Immigration. The agency denied asylum and withholding of removal based on a finding that serious reasons exist to believe petitioner committed a serious nonpolitical crime outside the U.S. Held: the "serious reasons for believing" standard requires a finding of probable cause before an alien can be subject to the mandatory bar set forth in 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1158(b0(2)(A)(iii) and 8 C.F.R. Sec. 1208.16(d)(2). Because no such finding was made below, the matter is reversed and remanded for proceedings consistent with the court's opinion.
You are here
[UNPUBLISHED] [Per Curiam - Before Colloton, Benton, and Stras, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. Defendant's sentence was substantively reasonable.
[UNPUBLISHED] [Per Curiam - Before Shepherd, Melloy, and Kobes, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Civil rights. Claims against four Nebraska state judges were barred by the doctrine of judicial immunity; dismissal of other claims against other defendants affirmed without comment.
[UNPUBLISHED] [Per Curiam - Before Shepherd, Melloy, and Kobes, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Social Security. Substantial evidence supported the ALJ's finding that claimant's disabilities did not meet the mental disorder listings, as well as the ALJ's findings regarding the claimant's RFC; the ALJ properly evaluated the medical evidence and claimant's subjective complaints.
[PUBLISHED] [Melloy, Author, with Smith, Chief Judge, and Loken, Circuit Judge] Petition for Review - Immigration. The Board of Immigration Appeals did not err in determining that petitioner's Iowa conviction for possession of a controlled substance in violation of Iowa Code Section 124.401(5) disqualified him from relief in the form of cancellation of removal as the Iowa statute is divisible as to marijuana offenses such as his; no error in the Board's decision to deny petitioner's motion for reconsideration as it acted within its discretion in interpreting the arguments raised in the motion as new and clearly distinct from what had been raised in petitioner's appeal.
[UNPUBLISHED] [Per Curiam - Before Shepherd, Grasz, and Kobes, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. Defendant's sentence is not substantively unreasonable.
[PUBLISHED] [Kobes, Author, with Shepherd and Stras, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Plaintiff's creditor hospital hired defendant Affiliated to collect her debt to it, and Affiliated's assignment of the contact to defendant CMLP created a contract between the creditor hospital and CMLP; the letter CMLP sent saying it could collect the debt owed the hospital was, therefore, true and did not violate 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1692e; neither Affiliated nor CMLOP were required to comply with an agreement between the creditor hospital and the State of Minnesota concerning billing regulations, and the letters the two organizations sent plaintiff are outside the scope of the Minnesota Treasury Department's regulations.
[UNPUBLISHED] [Per Curiam - Before Gruender, Benton and Stras, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Criminal law and sentencing. The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying defendant's motion to continue trial as he failed to show any prejudice from the denial of the motion; no error in imposing a two-level enhancement for possession of three to seven firearms under Guidelines Sec.2K2.1(b)(1)(A), as the guns were possessed as part of an ongoing series of offenses, which the court properly considered to be relevant conduct.
[UNPUBLISHED] [Per Curiam - Before Colloton, Benton, and Stras, Circuit Judges] Petition for Review - Immigration. The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying petitioner's untimely motion to reopen.
[PUBLISHED] [Per Curiam - Before Shepherd, Stras, and Kobes, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Criminal law and sentencing. In this prosecution for abusive sexual contact with a child, where the government introduced evidence of a prior sexual assault accusation against the defendant, the district court did not err in refusing to admit evidence that defendant had been acquitted of the charge as the evidence of acquittal was irrelevant, violated the hearsay rule and was not admissible as impeachment evidence; nor did the court err at sentencing int treating the prior abuse incident as part of a pattern of activity involving prohibited sexual conduct for purposes of Guidelines Sec. 4B1.5(b); the court could consider the incident once it found that it had been established by a preponderance of the evidence.