ELIAS HUINAC v. GARLAND (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.2021-04-13No. No. 20-2904

Summary · law.co

Holding. The petition for review is denied because Elias-Huinac's due process claim lacks merit and the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying his untimely motion to reopen.

Jose Luis Elias-Huinac, a Guatemalan national, sought judicial review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' decision to reject his motion to reopen removal proceedings. Elias-Huinac contended that the BIA's denial violated his due process rights. The court rejected this argument, finding that noncitizens do not possess a constitutionally protected interest in discretionary relief such as cancellation of removal and that Elias-Huinac failed to demonstrate both a fundamental procedural error and resulting prejudice.

The court also determined that the BIA properly exercised its discretion by denying Elias-Huinac's motion because he filed it beyond the 90-day deadline required by statute. The court applied the appropriate standard of review and found no grounds to disturb the BIA's decision.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether denial of a motion to reopen removal proceedings violates due process
Whether noncitizens have a protected liberty interest in discretionary cancellation of removal
Whether the BIA abused its discretion in denying an untimely motion to reopen

Procedural posture

Elias-Huinac petitioned for review of a BIA order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings under 8 U.S.C. § 1252.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

[Unpublished]

Guatemalan citizen Jose Luis Elias-Huinac petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying his motion to reopen proceedings. Having jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, this court finds no basis for reversal.

This court concludes that Elias-Huinacs due process claim is without merit. See Alva-Arellano v. Lynch, 811 F.3d 1064, 1066 (8th Cir. 2016) (to establish due process violation, noncitizen must demonstrate both fundamental procedural error, and prejudice); Nunez-Portillo v. Holder, 763 F.3d 974, 977 (8th Cir. 2014) (no constitutionally protected liberty interest in discretionary remedy of cancellation of removal). The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Elias-Huinacs untimely motion to reopen. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i) (motion to reopen must be filed within 90 days of entry of final order of removal); Vargas v. Holder, 567 F.3d 387, 391 (8th Cir. 2009) (standard of review).

The petition is denied. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

PER CURIAM.