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

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Mexico, sought review of the BIA's dismissal of his appeal from an IJ's order of removal. Petitioner was charged with speeding and driving without a valid drivers license in violation of South Dakota law. Petitioner subsequently admitted to an ICE agent his true name, that he was a Mexican citizen with unlawful status in the United States, and that he had purchased two false identification cards. The court concluded that the record does not support petitioner's argument that the arresting officer committed an egregious violation of his Fourth Amendment rights by stopping him solely because of his race; the IJ did not violate petitioner's due process rights by admitting the officer's affidavit or by limiting his ability to cross examine the officer who prepared Form I-213; and, even if the IJ had drawn an adverse inference against petitioner or compelled him to testify against his Fifth Amendment rights, Form I-213 independently established his removability. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review. View "Chavez-Castillo v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of El Salvador, sought review of the BIA's decision concluding that petitioner was ineligible for cancellation of removal because he had been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude - making terroristic threats under Minnesota law. The BIA ruled that petitioner's offense of uttering terroristic threats in reckless disregard of the risk of causing terror involves the reprehensible conduct of terrorizing another person with a culpable mental state, and is a turpitudinous offense. Consequently, petitioner was ineligible for cancellation of removal. The court denied his petition for review on this issue. The court also denied the petition for review based on the BIA's denial of his request for a remand to the immigration judge to consider whether he is eligible for asylum and withholding of removal based on his fear of gang violence and gang recruitment in El Salvador. The BIA's determination does not present a question of law or a constitutional claim over which the court has jurisdiction.View "Avendano v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native of Hong Kong, petitioned for review of the BIA's affirmance of the IJ's denial of withholding of removal. Petitioner claimed that she suffered past persecution based on her membership in a particular group, "Chinese daughters [who are] viewed as property by virtue of their position within a domestic relationship." The IJ assumed that petitioner suffered past persecution on account of membership in the particular social group she identified, but concluded that the government had rebutted the presumption by showing a fundamental change in circumstances. The court denied the petition, concluding that substantial evidence supported the IJ's determination that petitioner's age was a fundamental change in circumstances such that her life or freedom would not be threatened if she returned to Hong Kong.View "Hui v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Burma, petitioned for review of the BIA's denial of her motion to remand and her later motion to reopen her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The court concluded that the BIA did not abuse its considerable discretion in denying petitioner's motions. In total, petitioner claimed that her additional evidence explains why she delayed reporting the sexual abuse that she suffered and supports her claim that she is a Burmese citizen. While these are two concerns that the IJ had about her credibility, the IJ found petitioner was not credible for several other reasons. The BIA concluded that the additional evidence presented would not have warranted overturning the IJ's credibility finding and, therefore, the BIA was within its discretion to issue the denials. The court denied the petitions for review.View "Lee v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Petitioner, a citizen of Mexico, petitioned for review of the BIA's finding that petitioner did not qualify for cancellation of removal. Petitioner argued that the BIA committed an error of law when it "failed to follow its own precedent" in deciding the hardship issue, and violated his right to due process by failing to adequately examine all the hardship factors he presented. The court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to consider the first contention where petitioner attempted to create jurisdiction by cloaking an abuse of discretion argument in constitutional legal garb, and the second contention was without merit. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review. View "Hernandez-Garcia v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitioned for review of the BIA's denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The court concluded that petitioner failed to establish he belonged to a particular social group because gangs specifically targeted his family; petitioner failed to show that his family is different from any other Salvadoran family that has experienced gang violence; petitioner's political-opinion argument was waived because he raised it for the first time on administrative appeal; and, in regards to relief under the CAT, the IJ and BIA found no evidence that the police in El Salvador condone or participate in criminal activities and petitioner acknowledged that the police try to help. Accordingly, the court denied the petition.View "Antonio-Fuentes v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Petitioner, a citizen of the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), petitioned for review of the BIA's order of removal. An IJ found petitioner's application frivolous and denied all forms of relief. The BIA affirmed. The court vacated and remanded for further proceedings on the issue of frivolousness because the BIA failed to pinpoint a material element that petitioner deliberately fabricated. Neither the BIA nor the IJ adequately explained or supported the frivolousness determination in this case. Accordingly, the court granted the petition for review.View "Limbeya v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitioned for review of the discretionary denial of his application for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. 1229b(b). The court concluded that petitioner's argument that the IJ and the BIA applied an incorrect legal standard is without merit and the court lacked jurisdiction to review this claim. Further, petitioner's claim that the BIA's failure to analyze two significant hardship factors violated his due process rights failed because cancellation of removal is a discretionary remedy. Because adjustment of status including cancellation of removal amounts to a power to dispense mercy, an alien can have no constitutionally protected liberty interest in such speculative relief and cannot state a claim for a violation of due process rights. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review.View "Nunez-Portillo v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Petitioner, a citizen of Gambia, petitioned for review of the BIA's dismissal of her appeal from an IJ's order that she be removed from the United States. The court concluded that there was substantial evidence to support the IJ's finding that petitioner gave false testimony - that she was not married - for the purpose of obtaining an immigration benefit - adjustment of status based on being an unmarried daughter over the age of twenty-one. The court further concluded that petitioner did not present a claim of direct persecution to the BIA and the BIA did not violate her due process rights by construing her appeal to raise only a derivative claim for withholding of removal. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review. View "Goswell-Renner v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native of Mexico, petitioned for review of the BIA's denial of his motion to reopen and challenged the BIA's refusal to open his case sua sponte. The court concluded that it had no jurisdiction to review the Board's June 2013 order denying the April 2013 motion to reopen where petitioner's contentions regarding the Board's evaluation of new factual information presented no question of law. Further, the court lacked jurisdiction to review the Board's refusal to reopen a case sua sponte because there is no meaningful standard against which to judge the agency's exercise of discretion and the determination is committed to agency discretion by law. Accordingly, the court dismissed the petition for review. View "Barajas-Salinas v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law