Summary
This published per curiam opinion from the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals denies a Mexican citizen’s petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals order denying his motion to reopen and reconsider an application for cancellation of removal. The petitioner argued that newly available evidence regarding his U.S. citizen family members demonstrated exceptional and extremely unusual hardship required by statute. The court applied a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard, finding that the BIA reasonably concluded the new evidence would not likely change the outcome of the case. Consequently, the petition for review is denied.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the BIA abused its discretion by denying a motion treated as a motion to reopen based on newly available evidence concerning the petitioner's United States-citizen family members.
- Whether the BIA abused its discretion by refusing to reconsider the denial of the petitioner's application for cancellation of removal.
- Whether the BIA violated the petitioner's Fifth Amendment due process rights by denying him the opportunity to present the new evidence.
Holdings
- The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reopen because the new evidence would not likely change the outcome of the cancellation-of-removal case.
- The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying reconsideration because it and the IJ expressly considered the claimed emotional hardship, applied the correct legal standard, and did not ignore or distort the record.
- The BIA's denial of the motion to reopen did not violate the petitioner's Fifth Amendment due process rights because the BIA expressly considered the arguments raised in the motion.
Key quotations
“Such disagreement, alone, does not make the BIA’s decision an abuse of discretion.” (at 543)
“The BIA abuses its discretion where it gives no rational explanation for its decision, departs from its established policies without explanation, relies on impermissible factors or legal error, or ignores or distorts the record evidence.” (at 544)
Factual background
Chacon-Ruiz, a Mexican citizen, entered the United States without documentation in January 2001 and was placed in removal proceedings in 2011. He conceded removability but sought cancellation of removal based on alleged exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to his two sons, who lived with a foster parent, were healthy, and were doing well in school. During the proceedings, he presented additional evidence concerning a United States-citizen child, a new wife, and two United States-citizen stepchildren.
Procedural history
The Immigration Judge denied Chacon-Ruiz's application for cancellation of removal after finding that he had not established exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to his qualifying children. The BIA denied his appeal and motions to remand, remanding only for a new voluntary-departure period. After the BIA denied a second motion to remand and rejected his request to reconsider the cancellation-of-removal denial, Chacon-Ruiz petitioned the Eighth Circuit for review. The court denied the petition.