CAMARILLO-JOSE v. Holder
676 F.3d 1140
8th Cir.2012Background
- Camarillo-Carlos, a Mexican native, entered the U.S. near San Ysidro circa February 1999 and has lived with his U.S. citizen wife and children.
- DHS issued a Notice to Appear on June 26, 2009, charging removability under 8 U.S.C. § 1229(b)(1).
- Camarillo sought cancellation of removal and, alternatively, voluntary departure on November 3, 2009.
- An IJ, on May 10, 2010, denied hardship and continuous residence arguments but granted voluntary departure; he timely appealed on June 7, 2010.
- The BIA upheld the IJ’s hardship ruling and, in response to a May 2, 2011 motion, reinstated voluntary departure but denied reopening based on new evidence (an IEP about his son’s developmental delay).
- The BIA later found the new evidence did not show a likelihood of changing the outcome, and the petition for review was denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether BIA abused discretion by ignoring new evidence | Camarillo argues BIA failed to consider the IEP | BIA reviewed the evidence but found it lacking specificity | No abuse; BIA reasonably weighed the evidence |
| Whether BIA distorted the new evidence about the child’s delay | Camarillo claims mislabeling as a learning disability distorted substance | BIA’s labeling did not affect substance of evidence | No reversible distortion; mislabeling insufficient to overturn |
| Whether new evidence could likely change the outcome | IEP shows potential hardship due to son's delay | IEP fails to show how absence would cause exceptional hardship | BIA properly found no likely change in result; no reopening |
| Whether BIA properly applied the 'heavy burden' standard under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b) | Camarillo contends evidence meets hardship standard | Evidence does not meet the rigor of exceptional and extremely unusual hardship | BIA within discretion in denying reopening based on this standard |
Key Cases Cited
- Averianova v. Holder, 592 F.3d 931 (8th Cir. 2010) (abuse of discretion standard for motions to reopen; deferential review)
- Barragan-Verduzco v. INS, 777 F.2d 424 (8th Cir. 1985) (BIA need only consider issues and announce decision so reviewing court can perceive deliberation)
- Vargas v. Holder, 567 F.3d 387 (8th Cir. 2009) (disagreement with BIA weighing not a remand-worthy error)
- Lopez-Amador v. Holder, 649 F.3d 880 (8th Cir. 2011) (new evidence of changed circumstances not warranting reopening)