CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT |
WALID ABDULAHAD,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,
Respondent. |
No. 22-3743 |
On Petition for Review from the Board of Immigration Appeals.
No. A 075 056 571.
Argued: October 24, 2023
Decided and Filed: April 11, 2024
Before: MOORE, GIBBONS, and STRANCH, Circuit Judges.
_________________________
OPINION
_________________________
KAREN NELSON MOORE, Circuit Judge. Walid Abdulahad petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (the “Board”) denial of his motion to reopen based on changed
country conditions in Iraq. The Board denied the motion to reopen because it found that
Abdulahad’s motion evidence was cumulative of evidence submitted with prior motions to
reopen, Abdulahad had not established a particularized risk of torture sufficient to establish
prima facie eligibility for Deferral of Removal under the Convention Against Torture (“DCAT”),
and Abdulahad had not established that each step in his causal-chain claim was more likely than
not to occur. For the reasons set forth below, we GRANT the petition, VACATE the Board’s
decision, and REMAND the case to the Board for proceedings consistent with this opinion. |
CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT |
SEDRIC WARD,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
SHELBY COUNTY, TENNESSEE,
Defendant-Appellant. |
No. 22-6054 |
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee at Memphis.
No. 2:20-cv-02407—Jon Phipps McCalla, District Judge.
Argued: October 18, 2023
Decided and Filed: April 11, 2024
Before: CLAY, KETHLEDGE, and MATHIS, Circuit Judges.
_________________________
OPINION
_________________________
PER CURIAM. Sedric Ward is an Army reservist who worked at the Shelby County Jail.
The County fired Ward in 2015, but later entered into a settlement agreement in which, as to his
termination, Ward expressly released “any and all claims whatsoever[.]” Yet Ward later brought
this suit against the County, asserting a claim under the Uniformed Services Employment and
Reemployment Rights Act, 38 U.S.C. § 4301 et seq. (USERRA). The question here is whether
the settlement agreement was effective to release Ward’s claim under the Act. We disagree with
the district court’s reasoning on that question, so we vacate the court’s judgment in favor of
Ward. |
|