Flores-Molina v Sessions

Flores-Molina sought review of the denial of his request for cancellation of removal arguing is conviction for supplying false identity information to police officer was not a crime involving moral turpitude. The panel agreed, granted his petition and remanded. It held that none of the precedential decisions relied upon by the appeals board supports the conclusion that the ordinance here, Denver Municipal Code 38-40, is a crime of moral turpitude  as all those cases involved laws with specific intent elements requiring fraud or deceit, involved acts in which fraud was an inherent part or require deception and specific intent to harm or obtain a benefit which tracks the generic definition of fraud and 38-40 does not have a fraud element, fraud is not intrinsic to the act of giving false information about a person’s identity to city officers and employees criminalizes all provision of false information even with no intent to deceive, harm or obtain a benefit and even if the information is not material. It noted that Colorado precedent declared similar municipal ordinances to be general intent crimes (which are not crimes involving moral turpitude) and have held a similar state statute to lack any fraud or intent to harm or gain a benefit element. Based on its analysis, the panel declined to afford Chevron deference and further declined to afford Skidmore deference because the analysis on this issue was short, relied upon distinguishable or inapposite precedent and ignored the immigration judge’s statements that there was no binding authority on point and declared 38-40 to not be a crime involving moral turpitude.

Garling v United States Environmental Protection agency

Garling appealed judgment or Agency arguing their claims were not time barred. The panel reversed and remanded with instructions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. It held sovereign immunity barred 6 of 7 the claims here as agency had discretion as to how to investigate and enforce the Safe Drinking Water Act; the investigation of Garling and the raid on her lab were done by law enforcement and the compliant pleads intentional torts of false arrest, false imprisonment and abuse of process and the federal government has not waived immunity for those torts by law enforcement officials; defamation claims are specifically excluded from the federal government’s waiver of sovereign immunity; and the conspiracy claim fails because none of the underlying torts can provide a basis of recovery.

Romero v Top-Tier Colorado LLC

Romero appealed the dismissal of her wage claim. The panel reversed and remanded. It held that under 29 USC 203(m) and 206(a), the district court was required to determine as a threshold matter whether Romero performed nontipped duties such as trash removal more than 20% of her work hours and was thus entitled to minimum wages for those hours and failed to do so and further rejecting Top-Tier’s argument that 206(a) is satisfied so long as a tipped employee makes the federal minimum when total wages and tips divided by hours worked as inconsistent with the plain language of 203(m) which requires some payment of some wages regardless of the amount of tips received.

Powell v Miller

Miller appealed the denial of his motion to reconsider the denial is qualified immunity defense. The panel dismissed for lack of jurisdiction holding that while review was available for the initial denial, the motion to reconsider decision does not independently satisfy the collateral order doctrine, as it does not actually decide any important issue. The panel noted this decision did not bar a timely appeal if Miller files a summary judgment motion based on qualified immunity and it is denied.