CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
AMMAR ISAM MARQUS,
Petitioner,
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
   No. 18-4252
On Petition for Review
from the Board of Immigration Appeals;
No. A 212 373 178.
Decided and Filed: July 30, 2020
Before: MOORE, McKEAGUE, and GRIFFIN, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

KAREN NELSON MOORE, Circuit Judge. Ammar Isam Marqus petitions this court to review the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying him deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) and denying his motion to remand for consideration of new evidence. For the reasons that follow, we DENY in part and GRANT in part the petition for review, and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.



CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
JOE B. ALLMAN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
WALMART, INC.,
Defendant-Appellee.
   No. 19-4220
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Ohio at Columbus.
No. 2:18-cv-00369—Sarah Daggett Morrison, District Judge.
Decided and Filed: July 30, 2020
Before: GILMAN, BUSH, and READLER, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

RONALD LEE GILMAN, Circuit Judge. Joe B. Allman was employed as a commercial truck driver by Walmart, Inc. After Allman’s supervisors required him to wear a continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) machine at night based on medical reports that Allman had sleep apnea, he resigned. Allman has alleged that he was in fact constructively discharged from Walmart due to its requirement that he wear the CPAP machine. He also claims that Walmart retaliated against him by requiring him to wear the device, in violation of Ohio Revised Code Annotated § 4112.02(I), and that he was wrongfully terminated in violation of Ohio public policy.

The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Walmart with respect to Allman’s retaliation claim and granted Walmart’s motion to dismiss Allman’s wrongful-termination claim. For the reasons set forth below, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.