Jose Rivera-Campos v. Merrick Garland, 21-1587

Petitioner Jose Ricardo Rivera-Campos, a Salvadoran national, sought reopening of his removal proceedings alleging they were fundamentally unfair.
The immigration judge denied his motion to reopen; the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissed his appeal.
Rivera-Campos argued due process violations based on errors in his individual hearing and the BIA’s failure to prepare a transcript for his motion to reopen.
He sought reopening to apply for relief but did not submit the required application, affidavits, or supporting documentary evidence as required by statute and regulation.
The BIA concluded he failed to show actual prejudice from any procedural errors and denied reopening; the Eighth Circuit reviewed de novo and for abuse of discretion where appropriate.
The court held that Rivera-Campos failed to demonstrate prejudice and that a transcript would not have changed the outcome, so the petition for review was denied.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether procedural errors in the hearing violated due process and required reopening	Rivera-Campos: hearing was fundamentally unfair; merits warrant reopening to apply for relief	BIA: even assuming errors, Rivera-Campos failed to establish actual prejudice and did not submit required application/evidence	Court: Due process claim fails—no prejudice shown and regulatory requirements not met; denial affirmed
Whether BIA’s failure to prepare a transcript for the motion denied due process	Rivera-Campos: transcript necessary to prove errors and prejudice	BIA: transcript would not change the outcome; even assuming a protected interest, no prejudice	Court: No error—transcript would not have altered result; denial affirmed

Alva-Arellano v. Lynch, 811 F.3d 1064 (establishes de novo review standard for certain due process claims in immigration cases)
United States v. Torres-Sanchez, 68 F.3d 227 (defines actual prejudice standard in deportation proceedings)
Njie v. Lynch, 808 F.3d 380 (requires meeting substantive and regulatory requirements when seeking reopening to file a new application for relief)
Poniman v. Gonzales, 481 F.3d 1008 (identifies grounds for denying motions to reopen, including failure to establish a prima facie case)
INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94 (framework for denial of motions to reopen and standards for discretionary relief)
Ramirez v. Sessions, 902 F.3d 764 (reiterates that both procedural error and prejudice are required for a due process claim)
Ali v. Barr, 924 F.3d 983 (discusses protected liberty interest in discretionary reopening)