Justia U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

The Eighth Circuit denied petitions for review of the IJ's denial of petitioner's application for cancellation of removal and the BIA's dismissal of the subsequent appeal and denial of his motion to reconsider. The court held that the BIA did not err in finding that petitioner was ineligible for cancellation of removal, nor abused its discretion in denying his motion for reconsideration, because defendant's prior conviction for misdemeanor domestic assault under the Minnesota statute was a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. 16(a). In this case, the BIA appropriately applied this circuit's law and did not abuse its discretion. View "Ramirez-Barajas v. Sessions" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit denied a petition for review of the BIA's decision affirming the IJ's decision sustaining DHS's charges that petitioner entered into a fraudulent marriage with the purpose of procuring adjustment of status. The court held that the testimony and documentary evidence submitted by DHS -- and not refuted by credible evidence that petitioner and his wife ever lived together -- was substantial evidence that supported the IJ's finding that the marriage was fraudulent under 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(6)(C)(i) and therefore petitioner was removable under section 1227(a)(1)(A). View "Abuya v. Sessions" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit granted the petition for review challenging the denial of petitioner's application for a waiver and order of removal. The court held that the BIA erred in affirming the IJ's admission of the ex-husband's affidavit and the USCIS report without granting petitioner's request for a subpoena or otherwise providing petitioner the opportunity to cross-examine the ex-husband. The court also held that this error was prejudicial and rendered petitioner's removal hearing fundamentally unfair. Furthermore, the BIA abused its discretion in denying petitioner's motion for remand under 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(6)(C)(i), based on her now-husband's pending visa petition on her behalf, which would give petitioner the opportunity to adjust status independent of the conditional status she received by way of her marriage to her ex-husband. In this case, petitioner faced no accusations of fraud or willful misrepresentations, the IJ declined to make an adverse credibility finding, and the IJ explicitly acknowledged that petitioner had not been charged with entering into a marriage by fraud, or for paying for a marriage. View "Patel v. Sessions" on Justia Law

The failure to satisfy the warning requirements of 8 C.F.R. 240.25 does not preclude a finding of a voluntary departure under threat of deportation sufficient to break the ten-year period of continuous presence required to be eligible for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. 1229b(b). The Eighth Circuit affirmed the denial of a petition for review of the BIA's dismissal of petitioner's appeal from the IJ's denial of his application for cancellation of removal of a nonpermanent resident alien under section 1229b(b). The court held that petitioner voluntarily departed the country under a threat of deportation, thus breaking his continuous presence here. View "Rodriguez-Labato v. Sessions" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit denied a petition for review of the denial of petitioner's application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The court held that the IJ's credibility finding was rooted in numerous inconsistencies between petitioner's testimony and the record, the implausibility of certain events, and a lack of corroborating evidence. Therefore, substantial evidence supported the denial of asylum. Because withholding of removal and CAT claims were based on the same discredited testimony, these claims also failed. View "Kegeh v. Sessions" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native of Ethiopia and a former government official, petitioned for review of the BIA's denial of his application of asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). When petitioner attempted to narrow his social group, the Eighth Circuit held that it lacked jurisdiction to consider such arguments not clearly made before the agency. The court also held that petitioner did not experience past persecution on account of his political opinion, and his fear of future persecution was not objectively reasonable. Consequently, petitioner failed to meet the higher burden of proof required for withholding of removal. Therefore, the court denied the petition for review. View "Baltti v. Sessions" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit denied a petition for review of the BIA's decision affirming the IJ's denial of petitioner's request for asylum. The court held that the BIA did not engage in impermissible fact-finding; substantial evidence supported the BIA's conclusion that that there was an insufficient nexus between the threats and petitioner's membership in a community development organization that addressed gang problems in the area; and substantial evidence supported the conclusion that petitioner failed to demonstrate an objectively reasonable fear of future persecution. View "Gomez-Garcia v. Sessions" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Nigeria, sought review of the denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The Eighth Circuit agreed with the IJ and the BIA that the harms petitioner described were not persecution because they were not inflicted by the government or private parties that the government was not able to control. In this case, petitioner asserted that supernatural forces inflicted much of the harm; to the extent petitioner asserted that the Nigerian government was unable or unwilling to control the devil's human agents, substantial evidence showed otherwise; substantial evidence supported the agency's determination that petitioner had no objectively reasonable fear of future persecution; and, given the record evidence showing the government's efforts to curtail the torture of suspected witches and wizards, substantial evidence supported the agency's denial of petitioner's request for CAT relief. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review. View "Edionseri v. Sessions" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Mexico, challenged the BIA's decision affirming the IJ's finding that he was not eligible for cancellation of removal or voluntary departure because he had a prior criminal conviction for a crime involving moral turpitude (CIMT). The Eighth Circuit denied the petition for review, holding that the BIA did not err by affirming the IJ's finding that petitioner had a conviction for Aggravated Forgery and that he was ineligible for cancellation of removal. The court held that petitioner's probation, community service, and fines constitute court-imposed penalties under 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(48). View "Mendoza-Saenz v. Sessions" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a citizen of Bosnia and Herzegovina, part of the former Yugoslavia, sought review of the BIA's affirmance of the IJ's finding that petitioner was ineligible for relief from removal because he failed to prove he was not an alien who committed, assisted, or otherwise participated in extrajudicial killings under color of law of any foreign nation pursuant to 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)(E)(iii). The IJ found petitioner removable because, at the time of his admittance and adjustment of status, he concealed that he had served in the Army of the Serb Republic, Vojska Republika Srpske (VRS). The court explained that DHS proved by clear and convincing evidence that petitioner was removable because he was inadmissible under section 1182(a)(6)(C)(i) for willful misrepresentation of a material fact, and thus the issue was whether he was eligible for waiver relief from that removal under section 1227(a)(1)(H). Because petitioner concedes that he was removable for willful misrepresentation and DHS's evidence indicates that he may have participated or assisted in extrajudicial killings at Srebrenica in July, 1995, the court denied the petition for review. The court lacked jurisdiction to grant petitioner's request for voluntary departure. View "Maric v. Sessions" on Justia Law