Editor’s Note: Law Week Colorado edits court opinion summaries for style and, when necessary, length.
Amarjeet Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitioned for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision affirming an immigration judge’s denial of his asylum request.
Singh argued that the board misinterpreted the unable-or-unwilling standard that applies to asylum claims alleging private persecution. He also argued that his evidence compels the finding that the Indian government had been unable or unwilling to protect him from past persecution committed by political rivals. The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, exercising its jurisdiction, denied the petition because the board didn’t misinterpret the unable-or-unwilling standard and its fact-finding satisfied the substantial-evidence standard.
Considering the entire administrative record—including India’s specific response to Singh’s alleged persecution alongside the country’s general conditions—the 10th Circuit found that any reasonable adjudicator would not be compelled to conclude that the Indian government was unable or unwilling to protect Singh from private sectarian persecution. Under the highly deferential substantial evidence standard, the board’s finding is conclusive.
The 10th Circuit denied the petition for review.
Munoz, et al. v. Conduent, et al.
New Mexico contracted with Wells Fargo Bank N.A. to run EPPICard, a program that delivers state benefits to qualified recipients via a prepaid debit card. Wells Fargo subcontracted with Conduent State & Local Solutions Inc. and Conduent Business Services LLC to administer the program.
Cardholders Ana Munoz and Michael Tilley sued Wells Fargo and Conduent for violations of federal and state law, alleging failure to reimburse them for unauthorized transactions on their EPPICards. Each defendant moved to compel arbitration based on an arbitration agreement in the EPPICard terms and conditions. The district court granted Wells Fargo’s motion but denied Conduent’s.
Conduent appealed the denial of its motion to compel. It argued the district court erred by deciding whether the claims were arbitrable rather than delegating that decision to the arbitrator and denying that equitable estoppel should compel arbitration of the claims.
The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed on the second ground.
Martin Lopez was convicted of carjacking and brandishing a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence. The convictions stemmed from a clash involving Lopez, his girlfriend and a friend of his girlfriend. The government attributed the clash to Lopez’s effort to take his girlfriend’s car against her will.
Lopez presented two main issues: introduction of testimonial hearsay in violation of the evidentiary rules and the confrontation clause, and an improper closing argument.
The first issue arose from testimony by investigating officers who had questioned Lopez’s girlfriend. The officers didn’t directly testify about what the girlfriend had said. But Lopez argued that the testimony obviously implied that she had corroborated the government’s account.
The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed, concluding that any such implication wouldn’t have been obvious. The court has said that the hearsay rules require an identifiable statement, and it’s not clear from the officers’ testimony what the girlfriend had said. The court found that any possible hearsay or violation of the confrontation clause wouldn’t have been obvious.
The second issue involved the government’s closing argument. The prosecution referred to threats against witnesses and their fears. For this issue, the 10th Circuit considered whether any improprieties would have been plain. In its view, they wouldn’t have been. The court found that at most, the closing argument contained ambiguities, which wouldn’t render any improprieties plain.
The 10th Circuit affirmed.
Judge Robert Bacharach wrote in a concurring opinion that Lopez argued that the government violated the confrontation clause by implying in closing argument that one of the witnesses had corroborated the charges. He noted that the government hadn’t questioned the applicability of the confrontation clause to statements in closing argument, and that as a result, the majority hadn’t addressed the issue. He wrote separately only to note that this issue remained open in the 10th Circuit.