Carlos Enrique Urrutia Robles v. Merrick B. Garland, 23 F.4th 1061

Carlos Urrutia, a lawful permanent resident, was placed in removal proceedings after a DUI-related accident that injured a pedestrian; he conceded removability and applied for cancellation of removal.
The Immigration Judge found Urrutia met statutory eligibility and granted cancellation of removal in the exercise of discretion.
The BIA, reviewing de novo, reversed the IJ, denied cancellation as a discretionary matter, and later denied Urrutia’s first motion to reopen; this court earlier denied review of those BIA orders (Urrutia I).
Urrutia filed a second motion to reopen, submitting additional evidence of rehabilitation and expert opinion about harm to his daughter, and argued the time-and-number limits should be equitably tolled.
The BIA denied the second motion, concluding (1) Urrutia did not show an exception to the time/number limits, (2) the supplemental evidence was unlikely to change the discretionary outcome, and (3) sua sponte reopening was not warranted.
The Eighth Circuit denied review, holding the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying reopening and that Urrutia’s constitutional claim (to trigger review of sua sponte denial) failed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether BIA abused discretion by failing to address equitable tolling of time/number limits	Urrutia: BIA failed to consider equitable tolling and must remand	Government: BIA need not address tolling when it denies motion on independent discretionary ground	Denied — BIA’s alternative ground (motion would not change result) made remand unnecessary
Whether the new evidence was material and likely to change the outcome (warrant reopening)	Urrutia: Additional rehabilitation and expert evidence would likely change discretionary grant	Government: Evidence was cumulative, not new, and would not alter discretionary denial	Denied — BIA reasonably found evidence unlikely to change outcome and properly ‘‘leapt ahead’’ to deny
Whether BIA abused discretion by declining sua sponte reopening for exceptional circumstances	Urrutia: Exceptional hardship to child and other circumstances warranted sua sponte reopening	Government: No colorable constitutional claim to enable review of sua sponte denial	Denied — Court cannot review absent colorable constitutional claim; Urrutia’s due-process claim fails
Whether Ortega-Marroquin requires remand when tolling was not addressed	Urrutia: Ortega mandates remand if BIA fails to address tolling issue	Government: Ortega applied Chenery rule; remand only needed if BIA’s stated grounds are insufficient for review	Denied — Ortega inapposite because BIA’s stated alternate ground sufficed for review

Urrutia Robles v. Barr, 940 F.3d 420 (8th Cir. 2019) (prior panel decision addressing initial BIA discretionary denial and first motion to reopen)
Kucana v. Holder, 558 U.S. 233 (2010) (standard of review for BIA denials of motions to reopen)
Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408 (2005) (elements for equitable tolling: diligence and extraordinary circumstances)
INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94 (1988) (BIA may deny reopening on discretionary grounds even if prima facie case shown)
Ortega-Marroquin v. Holder, 640 F.3d 814 (8th Cir. 2011) (remand required when agency decision fails to address dispositive issue needed for review)
SEC v. Chenery Corp., 332 U.S. 194 (1947) (reviewing court must judge agency action by grounds invoked by the agency)
Capiz-Fabian v. Barr, 933 F.3d 1015 (8th Cir. 2019) (equitable tolling principles applied in immigration context)
Vargas v. Holder, 567 F.3d 387 (8th Cir. 2009) (BIA policy: additional evidence that is cumulative may not warrant reopening)