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

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

Petitioner appealed the BIA's affirmance of the IJ's denial of petitioner's requests for asylum, cancellation of removal, special cancellation of removal, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The court concluded that petitioner's 1989 conviction for grand theft auto was an aggravated felony which made him ineligible for cancellation of removal and special cancellation of removal; the court joined its sister circuits in concluding that Congress intended the aggravated felony bar to apply to convictions received before the enactment of the Miscellaneous and Technical Immigration and Naturalization Amendments of 1991 (MTINA) in 1991, and the court further concluded that the bar applied to petitioner's 1989 conviction; and the court declined to address petitioner's adverse credibility claims on mootness grounds. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review. View "Hernandez v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitioned for review of the BIA's decision affirming the IJ's pretermission of his application for cancellation of removal under section 240A(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1229b(b). The court concluded that petitioner's prior conviction for tampering with records under Iowa Code 715A.5 was categorically a crime involving moral turpitude. Therefore, petitioner was statutorily ineligible for cancellation of removal and the court denied the petition for review. View "Villatoro v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Petitioner, a national and citizen of Kenya, sought review of the BIA's dismissal of her appeal from an IJ's order concluding that she was removable and denying her petition for adjustment of status. Petitioner argued that the IJ erred by denying her motion to suppress her I-9 forms and her Hutchison Community College (HCC) applications. The court concluded that INA 274A(b)(5) allows the admission of I-9 forms into evidence in removal proceedings; absent an egregious violation of the Fourth Amendment or other liberty which transgresses the fundamental fairness of the removal proceedings or affects the probative value of the evidence obtained, the exclusionary rule is not available in the removal context to remedy a mere statutory violation of Federal Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), 20 U.S.C. 1232g; and, therefore, the court denied the petition for review. View "Downs v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a native of Afghanistan, filed suit seeking to compel officials to decide immediately his pending application for adjustment of status. The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the officials where the officials' delay in adjudicating plaintiff's adjustment-of-status application was not unreasonable. View "Irshad v. Johnson, et al." on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitioned for review of a decision of the BIA dismissing his appeal from the IJ's order of removal. Petitioner admitted that the tampering with evidence conviction justified his removal. However, he argued that res judicata barred DHS from bringing the removal proceedings against him because the tampering with evidence conviction arose from the same nucleus of operative fact as the manslaughter conviction. The court concluded that petitioner's manslaughter and tampering with evidence convictions are two different causes of action that arose out of different facts, required different proof, and redressed different wrongs. Therefore, assuming without deciding that res judica principles applied to immigration proceedings, the requisite elements are not present and the removal proceedings are not barred. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review. View "Cabrera v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Petitioner, a Kenyan citizen, sought review of the BIA's order upholding the IJ's denial of her motion for a continuance and her request for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Petitioner asserted that she feared she would be subjected to female genital mutilation (FGM) if she returned to Kenya. Assuming, without deciding, that the IJ violated petitioner's statutory right to counsel by not at least calling her counsel to see that her statutory right to counsel was honored, petitioner cannot prove prejudice. Here, neither petitioner nor her counsel has set forth evidence affirmatively proving that petitioner was entitled to the relief that she seeks. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review. View "Njoroge v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Tanzania, sought review of several of the BIA's orders. The court concluded that the court's jurisdiction was limited to reviewing the BIA's denial of petitioner's motion to reopen and reconsider (May 6 order). Because the BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying petitioner's motion, the court denied the petition for review. The court granted, however, petitioner's motion for leave to file a reply brief out of time. View "Mshihiri v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native of China, sought review of the BIA's denial of her 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 discretion in denying the motion where petitioner failed to produce documents that were previously unavailable to her 2010 merits hearing and that were material to the outcome of the proceeding. She failed to demonstrate the likely impact of any economic sanctions imposed for her violations of China's one-child policy or the probability that she would be subject to sterilization in her particular province. Petitioner failed to make a prima facie case for her substantive asylum eligibility. The court rejected petitioner's argument that the BIA evaluated her exhibits too strictly where the court noted that the BIA correctly found that petitioner's documents from China were not sufficiently authenticated in any manner and were therefore not considered genuine, authentic, and objectively reasonable evidence. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review. View "Chen v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law