Summary
This per curiam opinion from the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals denies a petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals decision regarding a Guatemalan national facing removal. The petitioner sought cancellation of removal based on fathering a U.S. citizen daughter but failed to provide evidence that his deportation would cause exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to her. The court affirms the BIA's denial of his motion to reopen proceedings, finding no error in the agency's assessment or its handling of related procedural and discretionary arguments.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the BIA erred in treating Soto Santos’s motion to remand as a motion to reopen and denying it for failure to establish a prima facie case for cancellation of removal
- Whether the BIA’s fact‑finding was improper absent a specific identification of error
Holdings
- The BIA correctly treated the motion to remand as a motion to reopen and could deny it because Soto Santos failed to make out a prima facie case for cancellation of removal.
- The BIA’s fact‑finding was not improper because Soto Santos failed to identify any specific factual error.
Key quotations
“We agree, and we are unmoved by Soto‑Santos’s other objections to the BIA’s decision, so we deny Soto‑Santos’s petition for review.” (697)
“Because Soto‑Santos requested “additional proceedings in which to present newly available evidence,” see Chacon‑Ruiz v. Garland, 124 F.4th 541, 543 (8th Cir. 2024) (per curiam), and pursue new relief based on that evidence, we, like the BIA, construe his motion to remand as a motion to reopen proceedings.” (697)
Factual background
Soto Santos, a Guatemalan citizen, was placed in removal proceedings for unlawful presence. He conceded removability and pursued asylum and related relief, which were denied. After his child, a U.S. citizen, was born, he sought cancellation of removal, but the BIA denied his motion to remand for lack of a prima facie case.
Procedural history
The Department of Homeland Security initiated removal proceedings against Soto Santos, who conceded removability and unsuccessfully sought asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief. While the case was on BIA appeal, his girlfriend gave birth to a U.S. citizen child, prompting Soto Santos to move the BIA to remand so he could seek cancellation of removal. The BIA denied the motion, finding no prima facie case for eligibility.