Alvaro Rodriguez v. William P. Barr
952 F.3d 984
8th Cir.2020Background:
- Rodriguez entered the U.S. without inspection in 1998, lived with a common-law wife and three children (two U.S. citizens); he owned a home and a restaurant and was the family’s primary breadwinner.
- His youngest daughter suffered severe mental-health problems; the IJ found her condition and the family’s financial dependence on Rodriguez would create exceptional and extremely unusual hardship if he were removed.
- Rodriguez faced allegations including two state domestic-assault arrests (and one disorderly-conduct charge), a no-contact order, prior unproven abuse allegations, and alleged tax irregularities; he had no qualifying criminal convictions at the time of the IJ’s grant.
- The IJ granted cancellation of removal after balancing hardship and moral-character evidence; the BIA reversed, finding adverse factors (notably the recent arrest/no-contact order) outweighed positives and that Rodriguez had not shown the requisite period of good moral character, and ordered removal.
- Rodriguez filed a motion to reopen/reconsider with evidence that the domestic-assault charges were dismissed in favor of a disorderly-conduct plea and submitted affidavits; the BIA denied reopening; Rodriguez filed consolidated petitions to this Court challenging the BIA’s denial of cancellation and its denial of the motion to reopen.
- The Eighth Circuit denied both petitions: it held it lacked jurisdiction to review discretionary factual weighing underlying cancellation and found no abuse of discretion in the BIA’s denial of reopening.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether BIA erred in denying cancellation of removal (weighing of good moral character and hardship) | Rodriguez: IJ’s favorable balancing was correct; BIA misweighed factors and ignored extreme hardship to children | DHS/BIA: Decision to grant cancellation is discretionary; BIA reasonably weighed adverse conduct and lack of 10-year good moral character | Court: Jurisdictional bar on reviewing discretionary determinations; petition denied |
| Whether ICE’s alleged refusal to transport Rodriguez to state court violated due process and infected the immigration decision | Rodriguez: ICE inaction caused delays, prevented testimony, and deprived him of due process, leading BIA to rely on pending charges | DHS: Cancellation is discretionary, so there is no constitutionally protected interest in receiving it; no reviewable due-process claim | Court: No protected liberty interest in discretionary relief; claim fails |
| Whether BIA abused its discretion in denying motion to reopen/reconsider (new evidence, factual errors) | Rodriguez: New evidence (Rosa’s affidavit, dismissal of charges) shows factual errors and warrants reopening | BIA: Acknowledged minor factual error (three vs two charges) as harmless; Rosa’s affidavit was previously available; dismissal does not preclude consideration of underlying conduct | Court: BIA provided a rational explanation and did not abuse its discretion; motion denial affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Ali v. Barr, 924 F.3d 983 (8th Cir. 2019) (describing cancellation-of-removal eligibility framework)
- Guled v. Mukasey, 515 F.3d 872 (8th Cir. 2008) (no due-process right to discretionary relief)
- Nativi-Gomez v. Ashcroft, 344 F.3d 805 (8th Cir. 2003) (statutorily created discretionary relief does not create protected liberty interest)
- Sanchez-Velasco v. Holder, 593 F.3d 733 (8th Cir. 2010) (reiterating lack of due-process entitlement to discretionary cancellation)
- Escoto-Castillo v. Napolitano, 658 F.3d 864 (8th Cir. 2011) (review limited to administrative record)
- Apolinar v. Barr, 945 F.3d 1072 (8th Cir. 2019) (courts lack jurisdiction to review BIA’s discretionary weighing of hardship)
- Urrutia Robles v. Barr, 940 F.3d 420 (8th Cir. 2019) (abuse-of-discretion standard for reviewing BIA denial of motion to reopen)
- Salman v. Holder, 687 F.3d 991 (8th Cir. 2012) (motions to reopen are disfavored)