Jose Llanas-Trejo v. Merrick B. Garland, 53 F.4th 458

Llanas-Trejo entered the U.S. in 1996, was removed, reentered unlawfully in 1999, and accumulated multiple DUI convictions (1998, 2012, and 2016).
In 2013 he sought cancellation of removal based on hardship to his three U.S.-citizen children; proceedings were administratively closed in June 2016 as an exercise of prosecutorial discretion.
He was arrested and convicted for a DUI in July 2016, which prompted reopening of removal proceedings; at the 2018 IJ hearing the government declined to contest good moral character and the IJ found Llanas-Trejo satisfied that element but denied cancellation for lack of "exceptional and extremely unusual" hardship.
The BIA dismissed his direct appeal in December 2020, affirming the IJ’s hardship ruling but not addressing the IJ’s good-moral-character finding.
Llanas-Trejo later moved to reopen based on new evidence (a hit-and-run injuring his wife and adult daughter); the BIA denied reopening because (1) the wife was not a qualifying relative so most evidence was disregarded, and (2) Llanas-Trejo failed to rebut the Attorney General’s Castillo‑Perez presumption that multiple DUIs negate good moral character.
The Eighth Circuit held it had jurisdiction to review the denial of the motion to reopen, found the BIA erred in excluding the mother’s injury evidence as irrelevant to the children’s hardship but nonetheless affirmed because Llanas-Trejo failed to make a prima facie showing of good moral character under Castillo‑Perez.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Jurisdiction to review denial of motion to reopen	Court may review BIA denial of reopening for abuse of discretion	§1252(a)(2)(B) bars review of cancellation decisions	Court has jurisdiction to review BIA denial of motion to reopen for abuse of discretion (Kucana/Urrutia)
BIA’s refusal to consider wife's injury evidence (because she lacks status)	Mother’s injuries materially affect hardship to U.S.-citizen children and should be considered	Wife is not a qualifying relative, so her medical evidence is irrelevant	BIA abused discretion by dismissing mother’s evidence outright; her injury could bear on children’s hardship
Denial for failure to show good moral character under Castillo‑Perez presumption	Prior IJ finding and government concession make presumption inapplicable or unfair	Castillo‑Perez creates rebuttable presumption for multiple DUIs; petitioner submitted no new rebuttal evidence on reopening	No abuse: petitioner failed to rebut Castillo‑Perez presumption and thus failed prima facie to show good moral character
Whether prior IJ finding and government concession bound the BIA	IJ finding and earlier government concession should preclude re-litigating good moral character	BIA is not bound by IJ’s finding and may reconsider issues omitted on review	BIA not bound; silence on an issue in a prior BIA opinion does not bind future agency consideration

Patel v. Garland, 142 S. Ct. 1614 (2022) (clarified scope of §1252 jurisdictional bar and distinguished Kucana)
Kucana v. Holder, 558 U.S. 233 (2010) (motions to reopen remain judicially reviewable)
Urrutia Roblez v. Barr, 940 F.3d 420 (8th Cir. 2019) (confirming reviewability of BIA denial of motions to reopen for abuse of discretion)
Rodriguez v. Barr, 952 F.3d 984 (8th Cir. 2020) (standard for abuse-of-discretion review of motions to reopen)
Njie v. Lynch, 808 F.3d 380 (8th Cir. 2015) (petitioner must show prima facie eligibility to reopen)
N'Diaye v. Barr, 931 F.3d 656 (8th Cir. 2019) (BIA may reconsider issues not decided in a prior appeal)
Estrada-Rodriguez v. Lynch, 825 F.3d 397 (8th Cir. 2016) (law-of-the-case does not bar agency reconsideration of issues omitted on review)