Carlos Enrique Urrutia Robles v. William P. Barr, 940 F.3d 420

Background:

Carlos Enrique Urrutia Robles, a Mexican national, was placed in removal proceedings after a DUI incident that seriously injured a pedestrian; he conceded removability and applied for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1).
The IJ found Urrutia met statutory eligibility (10 years continuous presence, good moral character, no disqualifying convictions) and, weighing positive and negative factors, granted discretionary cancellation because Urrutia appeared committed to rehabilitation.
DHS appealed; the BIA reviewed the discretionary question de novo, weighed the same record evidence, and concluded Urrutia’s repeated DUIs and lack of demonstrated rehabilitation were too serious to warrant relief, reversing the IJ.
Urrutia moved to reopen with new evidence (completion of alcohol-rehab programs and letters of support); the BIA denied the motion, concluding the new evidence would not likely change the outcome given the recency and seriousness of his record.
The Eighth Circuit denied Urrutia’s petitions for review: it held it lacked jurisdiction to review the BIA’s discretionary denial of cancellation on the merits and, assuming arguendo jurisdiction over the motion-to-reopen denial, found no abuse of discretion. A dissent argued the BIA impermissibly substituted its own factual findings for the IJ’s.

Issues:

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the BIA improperly reviewed the IJ’s factual findings de novo and engaged in impermissible factfinding	BIA ignored the IJ’s factual findings (that Urrutia was committed to rehabilitation) and substituted its own facts	BIA lawfully weighed the same record de novo on the discretionary question and did not consider new evidence	Majority: BIA did not violate §1003.1(d)(3); it reweighed record evidence on discretion. Dissent: BIA substituted its own factual findings and remand was required
Whether the court has jurisdiction to review the BIA’s discretionary cancellation decision	Urrutia framed errors as legal to obtain review	DHS: statutory jurisdictional limits bar review of discretionary decisions	Held: Court lacks jurisdiction to review the Attorney General’s discretionary denial of cancellation on the merits
Whether the BIA abused its discretion by denying the motion to reopen to present new rehab evidence	New rehabilitation evidence and letters warranted remand to the IJ for reconsideration	BIA properly “leapt ahead,” concluding the proffered evidence wouldn’t likely change the outcome given the seriousness/recency of offenses	Held: Assuming jurisdiction, denial of the motion to reopen was not an abuse of discretion
Whether the BIA’s refusal to remand (rather than remaking factual findings) was contrary to established BIA practice	Urrutia sought remand so the IJ could reconsider discretionary relief in light of new evidence	DHS argued remand would cause delay and BIA may decide discretionary entitlement itself when new evidence would not alter result	Held: BIA acted within discretion to deny remand because the new evidence was insufficient to overcome Urrutia’s criminal history

Key Cases Cited

Hernandez-Garcia v. Holder, 765 F.3d 815 (8th Cir. 2014) (cannot cloak an abuse-of-discretion argument as a legal claim to create jurisdiction)
Belortaja v. Gonzalez, 484 F.3d 619 (2d Cir. 2007) (BIA regulation restricts new-evidence consideration but not reevaluation of IJ evidence)
Rotinsulu v. Mukasey, 515 F.3d 68 (1st Cir. 2008) (BIA may weigh and evaluate evidence introduced before the IJ)
Solis v. Holder, 647 F.3d 831 (8th Cir. 2011) (challenges to discretionary relief are beyond jurisdiction)
Kucana v. Holder, 558 U.S. 233 (2010) (courts retain authority to review denial of motions to reopen for abuse of discretion)
INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94 (1988) (BIA may deny motions to reopen on substantive discretionary grounds)
Vargas v. Holder, 567 F.3d 387 (8th Cir. 2009) (BIA policy and practice regarding remand and new evidence)
Gebremaria v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 734 (8th Cir. 2004) (motions to reopen are disfavored)
I.N.S. v. Rios-Pineda, 471 U.S. 444 (1985) (public interest in finality supports BIA discretion)
Waldron v. Holder, 688 F.3d 354 (8th Cir. 2012) (BIA must accept IJ factual findings unless clearly erroneous)