Pablo Rubio v. Jefferson Sessions, III, 891 F.3d 344

Background

Pablo Rubio, a Salvadoran national who entered the U.S. without admission, sought Temporary Protected Status (TPS) after El Salvador received a TPS designation; USCIS later withdrew his TPS and DHS initiated removal proceedings.
Rubio had three relevant prior adjudications: two Columbia, Missouri municipal ordinance violations (2002 leaving the scene; 2003 driving with excessive BAC) and a 2011 Missouri misdemeanor (driving with a suspended license).
USCIS withdrew Rubio’s TPS for failure to respond to requests about two convictions; in removal proceedings he filed a TPS application that an IJ initially granted, but a different IJ granted the government’s reconsideration motion and denied TPS.
The BIA affirmed the second IJ, holding Rubio’s two municipal ordinance adjudications were “convictions” under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(48)(A) and thus, because they were misdemeanors under 8 C.F.R. § 1244.1, rendered him ineligible for TPS under 8 U.S.C. § 1254a(c)(2)(B)(i).
Rubio challenged the BIA’s legal interpretation of “conviction” and procedural fairness; the Eighth Circuit reviewed the statutory issue de novo and denied Rubio’s petition for review.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Missouri municipal ordinance adjudications are “convictions” under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(48)(A) for TPS eligibility	Rubio: Missouri treats municipal ordinance violations as civil/quasi‑criminal, lacking criminal protections, so they are not INA "convictions"	Government/BIA: Substance controls; if guilt proved beyond a reasonable doubt and punishment meets federal misdemeanor definition, they are convictions	Held: Municipal adjudications here qualified as convictions because guilt was proved beyond a reasonable doubt and punishments met the TPS misdemeanor definition
Whether state procedural differences (no plea colloquy, limited jury/appeal rights, relaxed evidentiary rules) prevent INA conviction classification	Rubio: Procedural deficiencies show municipal proceedings are noncriminal and lack required safeguards	Government: Procedural variations do not alter the federal substance inquiry into whether a judgment of guilt occurred	Held: Procedural differences irrelevant to substance inquiry; no departure from uniform federal standard
Whether the BIA’s inconsistent decisions (e.g., Bajric) preclude deference	Rubio: BIA precedent is inconsistent and thus not entitled to deference	Government: BIA’s reasoning here reconciles precedent and is entitled to deference	Held: Court defers to the BIA’s thorough substantive review; affirms agency deference
Whether Rubio suffered due process prejudice from limited time to respond to reconsideration and summary denial	Rubio: IJ denied adequate time and reasons, violating due process	Government: No prejudice shown; dispositive legal question was fully briefed and reviewed by BIA	Held: No due process prejudice shown; petition fails

Key Cases Cited

Mejia Rodriguez v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 562 F.3d 1137 (11th Cir.) (federal review of threshold eligibility questions for TPS)
Mejia Rodriguez v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 629 F.3d 1223 (11th Cir.) (interpretive context for § 1101(a)(48) amendment)
Dominguez-Herrera v. Sessions, 850 F.3d 411 (8th Cir.) (upholding BIA finding that municipal convictions can be INA convictions)
Lopez v. Gonzales, 549 U.S. 47 (2006) (federal law—not state labels—controls immigration consequences)
Dickerson v. New Banner Inst., Inc., 460 U.S. 103 (federal interpretation governs when statutes apply across contexts)
Castillo v. Attorney General United States, 729 F.3d 296 (3d Cir.) (discussed regarding alleged BIA inconsistency)
Batrez Gradiz v. Gonzales, 490 F.3d 1206 (10th Cir.) (supporting beyond‑a‑reasonable‑doubt standard for finding guilt in immigration context)
Franklin, United States v., 250 F.3d 653 (8th Cir.) (guidance on federal interpretation of state adjudications)
Ismail v. Ashcroft, 396 F.3d 970 (8th Cir.) (due process prejudice standard in immigration proceedings)