Jose Guerrero Tejado v. Eric H. Holder, Jr., 776 F.3d 965

Guerrero, a Honduran who entered the U.S. illegally in 1990, repeatedly misrepresented himself as a Salvadoran to obtain immigration benefits (TPS, asylum application, work authorization) for nearly 19 years.
He submitted a false Salvadoran birth certificate in 1995 and continued misrepresentations through a 2001 asylum interview; he did not correct an asylum officer’s assumption that he was Salvadoran and later admitted he had not applied for NACARA benefits.
In 2009 DHS initiated removal proceedings after Guerrero missed an asylum interview; Guerrero then admitted Honduran citizenship and conceded removability but applied for cancellation of removal and asylum.
The IJ denied both applications on discretionary and eligibility grounds, citing Guerrero’s long history of falsehoods in immigration matters, criminal convictions (two DWIs), and an arrest for domestic assault; the IJ found he failed to show exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to his U.S.-citizen sons and found him not credible.
The BIA affirmed the IJ’s credibility, discretionary denial, and legal conclusions. Guerrero petitioned for review in the Eighth Circuit.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Jurisdiction to review discretionary denial of cancellation of removal	Guerrero argued the court could review legal errors and constitutional questions underlying the denial and contest the IJ’s factual/legal application regarding his sons’ hardship	Government argued denials of relief under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b are discretionary and largely unreviewable under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B) except for pure questions of law	Court held it lacked jurisdiction to review the discretionary denial; it reviewed only legal questions and non-discretionary eligibility rulings and found no legal error in application of the hardship standard
Denial of asylum (eligibility and discretion)	Guerrero argued he feared persecution as a perceived wealthy returnee and challenged the adverse credibility finding	Government argued IJ’s adverse credibility determination was supported by Guerrero’s long history of immigration falsehoods and that perceived-wealth is not a protected social group	Court upheld the adverse credibility finding (supported by specific, cogent reasons) and held perceived-wealth group is not a recognized asylum social group; denial of asylum not an abuse of discretion

Guled v. Mukasey, 515 F.3d 872 (8th Cir.) (courts lack jurisdiction to review discretionary cancellation decisions)
Gomez-Perez v. Holder, 569 F.3d 370 (8th Cir.) (distinguishes reviewable legal questions from discretionary determinations)
Solis v. Holder, 647 F.3d 831 (8th Cir.) (denial of review where applicant disputes weighting of factors in discretionary relief)
Hamilton v. Holder, 680 F.3d 1024 (8th Cir.) (reiterating lack of jurisdiction over discretionary cancellation denials)
Hassan v. Gonzales, 484 F.3d 513 (8th Cir.) (standard of review for asylum denials — abuse of discretion; defer to IJ factual findings)
R.K.N. v. Holder, 701 F.3d 535 (8th Cir.) (deferral to BIA on adverse credibility when supported by specific, cogent reasons)
Osonowo v. Mukasey, 521 F.3d 922 (8th Cir.) (same)
Matul-Hernandez v. Holder, 685 F.3d 707 (8th Cir.) (perceived-wealth as returning migrants is not a cognizable particular social group)
I.N.S. v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421 (U.S.) (asylum eligibility framework)
I.N.S. v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478 (U.S.) (burden and review standards on asylum claims)
Zuh v. Mukasey, 547 F.3d 504 (4th Cir.) (discretionary nature of asylum even when eligibility shown)