Justia U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Petitioner Jose Luis Magallon-Almanza, a native of Mexico, sought review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision affirming an immigration judge’s (IJ’s) order of removal. In the proceedings before the IJ, Petitioner conceded he was removable, but sought a cancellation of removal. The IJ found Petitioner did not meet either of these requirements and therefore denied relief and ordered him removed to Mexico. The BIA examined the evidence of hardship to Petitioner’s United States citizen children and agreed with the IJ that Petitioner did not establish they would suffer exceptional and extremely unusual hardship if he were removed to Mexico. The BIA also summarily rejected Petitioner’s argument that the IJ applied the wrong legal standards in analyzing his evidence of hardship. The BIA affirmed the IJ's order of removal. The Tenth Circuit's review of the IJ's decision showed no support for Petitioner's arguments raised on appeal. The Court therefore affirmed the IJ's and BIA's decisions.

Petitioner Jean Paul Hernandez, a native and citizen of Mexico, challenged a Board of Immigration Appeals' (BIA) decision affirming an immigration judge's denial of adjustment of status and a waiver of inadmissibility. Petitioner entered the United States on a B-2 visitor visa and overstayed his visit. Nearly twenty years later, the Department of Homeland Security charged him with remaining in this country without authorization. Petitioner conceded he was removable, but he sought several forms of relief, including adjustment of status. At a hearing, Petitioner testified that he came to this country when he was nine years old and had since been convicted of various crimes as a juvenile and adult, but was attempting to turn his life around. Due to his criminal convictions, however, in particular, two petty theft offenses and two controlled substance violations, the IJ concluded that Petitioner was ineligible for adjustment of status or a waiver of inadmissibility. Alternatively, the IJ ruled that even if Petitioner was eligible for adjustment of status, he did not warrant such discretionary relief because his extensive criminal record outweighed the positive attributes in his case, and there was no evidence of rehabilitation. The IJ thus ordered Petitioner removed to Mexico. The BIA affirmed. Finding that Petitioner characterized his argument "as one based on due process, but he cannot transform his challenge to the BIA’s denial of discretionary relief into a claim of constitutional magnitude for the simple reason that he had no due process interest in obtaining purely discretionary relief." The Court concluded it lacked jurisdiction for further review and dismissed the case.

After developing pain in his neck and shoulders, Petitioner Gordon George was diagnosed with cancer in 2003 and underwent surgery and radiotherapy. During his recovery, he continued to experience pain spanning from his neck to his shoulder and arm. Petitioner applied for disability and supplemental security income benefits. After many and various hearings, an administrative law judge (ALJ) concluded that for the period June 1, 2003 through July 31, 2005, Petitioner was disabled during that period. But the ALJ further found that Petitioner's condition improved dramatically over time and that by August 1, 2005, he no longer met any disability listing. The Appeals Council denied review, making the ALJ's decision final. On appeal to the Tenth Circuit, Petitioner raised several challenges to the ALJ's determination that he suffered no legally cognizable disability after August 2005. Upon review, the Court rejected all those challenges, and affirmed for substantially the reasons given by the district court, with one exception. The Court found that the ALJ erred by failing to consider whether, after August 1, 2005, Petitioner suffered from a mental disability. In our case, by contrast, the ALJ has not made any factual findings "one way or the other" about the existence, severity, or functional limitations, if any, imposed by Petitioner's mental condition: "[i]t's entirely possible the ALJ on remand will find Mr. George's mental health issues have no impact on his ability to work." The Court remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings.

Plaintiff-Appellant Raymond Boswell appealed the denial of his applications for Social Security benefits. Plaintiff applied for benefits in March 2007. He alleged that he had been unable to work since December 1, 2006 because of degenerative disc disease, bone spurs, and problems with his back, neck, arms, hands, shoulders, and liver. His applications were denied at the administrative level and on reconsideration. The district court accepted the recommendation of a magistrate judge that the Commissioner’s denial of benefits be affirmed. The Tenth Circuit affirmed the Commissioner's and district court's decisions: "[Petitioner] asks this court to reweigh the evidence and substitute our judgment for that of the Commissioner. We are without the authority to do so."

Plaintiff Donna Saterlee appealed a district court order that affirmed the Commissioner of Social Security's decision to deny social security disability and supplemental security income benefits. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) denied benefits at the last step of the five-step process for determining disability. Plaintiff argued that the ALJ erred by (1) improperly rejecting her hand impairment as medically nondeterminable at step two and consequently not including it in the RFC that formed the basis of the dispositive hypothetical to the Vocational Expert; and (2) failing to perform a proper credibility analysis in determining that complaints of limitations other than, or in excess of, those later included in the RFC were not credible. The Tenth Circuit found that the ALJ was "undeniably wrong" about the lack of documented medical evidence of Plaintiff's condition that gave rise to the alleged numbness, "undercutting the categorical rejection of such an impairment on this threshold basis." The Court remanded the case for an administrative decision that properly accounted for all of the evidence of record.

Petitioner Omar Garcia-Tinoco, a native and citizen of Mexico, challenged the Bureau of Immigration Appeals' (BIA's) decision dismissing his appeal of a removal order. Petitioner entered the U.S. without inspection in 1994. Five years later, he pled guilty in Colorado to possession of cocaine. In 2010, the Department of Homeland Security commenced removal proceedings against him. He appeared before an immigration judge (IJ) and conceded that he was in the country illegally, but contested removal on the basis of his controlled-substance conviction because he was "in the process of withdrawing his guilty plea pursuant to a violation of his constitutional rights." To that end, Petitioner filed a post-conviction petition in state court, arguing that his guilty plea was the result of ineffective assistance of counsel. The IJ denied the motion and ordered Petitioner removed. The BIA affirmed, stating that the IJ was not required to grant a continuance because Petitioner's "collateral attack upon his conviction d[id] not … negate its validity." Petitioner asked the Tenth Circuit to reverse the decision of the IJ and hold that he established good cause for a continuance. Upon review, the Court found that it lacked jurisdiction to review the case: "constitutional infirmities in collateral proceedings are 'categorically' beyond the scope of [the Court's] review."

Plaintiffs Osler and Georgia Childress appealed a district court's order that dismissed their 42 U.S.C 1983 medical-indifference case against Defendant Robert Harms. In 2006, Mr. Childress was staying at a hotel in Midvale, Utah when a motel clerk saw him staggering around his room and running into things. She called police and reported that an intoxicated guest was causing a commotion. Police arrived on the scene and arrested him. Upon Mr. Childress's arrival at the jail, nurses Robert Harms and Joel Smith examined him while he was handcuffed to a gurney. Mr. Childress denied drinking and answered questions about his military duties without difficulty, although his speech was slightly slurred. Authorities would later learn that Mr. Childress has suffered a cerebellar stroke while in custody which was originally dismissed as intoxication. The district court determined that Nurse Harms merely misdiagnosed Mr. Childress and dismissed his claims by summary judgment. On appeal, Mr. Childress argued that the district court "confuse[d] knowledge of harm with knowledge of the risk of harm." The Tenth Circuit concluded that Mr. Childress failed to establish the subjective component of "deliberate indifference," and as such, summary judgment was appropriately entered on his claim.

Pro se Plaintiff-Appellant Adam Kartiganer appealed two district court orders that ultimately dismissed his 42 U.S.C. 1983 claims against several law enforcement members. In 2006, Plaintiff was arrested during a traffic stop in Walsenburg, Colorado. Evidence was seized during the stop, including financial instruments belonging to individuals other than Plaintiff. Based on the seized evidence,the district attorney's office decided probable cause existed to file felony charges against Plaintiff. A public defender was assigned to Plaintiff's case, who promptly filed a motion to suppress the evidence seized during the stop. The court found no probable cause, and the DA's office dismissed the charges. Plaintiff sued alleging he had been falsely arrested, falsely imprisoned and subjected to malicious prosecution for five months before the charges were dropped. A federal magistrate granted defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the claims against them. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit carefully reviewed the "lengthy and thorough" decisions by the magistrate judge, as adopted and modified by the district court. The Court agreed completely with the reasoning and conclusions contained therein, and affirmed the district court’s orders dismissing the claims in this case.

Plaintiff-Appellant Amby Elkins was denied social security benefits, and appealed the Commissioner's rejection of her claims. She said she suffered from degenerative disc disease, rheumatoid arthritis, tendinitis, and depression. The combination of these conditions, she argued rendered her essentially incapable of performing any work. An administrative law judge, however, rejected Plaintiff's petition. On the basis of medical evaluations by independent physicians, he concluded that Plaintiff's testimony regarding the severity of her impairments was not credible. She appealed to the district court, which affirmed the ALJ's decision. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit declined to overturn the ALJ's findings of fact, and affirmed the district court's judgment.

Defendant-appellant Dennis Enriquez Lopez-Avila was charged with unlawful re-entry after deportation following an aggravated felony conviction. Defendant entered a guilty plea after reaching an agreement with the prosecution. The district court rejected Defendant's request for a sentence below that calculated under the advisory guidelines and sentenced him to thirty-seven months' imprisonment. Defendant argued on appeal that his sentence was procedurally unreasonable because the district court erroneously concluded that it could not consider the disparities created by the existence of fast-track programs when determining his sentence. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit found that Defendant presented a "generalized argument" which alone is not sufficient to justify a variance from the sentencing guidelines because of different sentencing guidelines for fast-track programs. Therefore, the Court rejected Defendant's claim of error and affirmed the district court's decision.