Sophia Baker White v. Monty Wilkinson, 990 F.3d 600

Sophia C. Baker White, a Swiss/UK citizen, overstayed her F‑1 visa and DHS initiated removal proceedings in Dec 2017; the IJ found her removable and denied cancellation of removal based on lack of good moral character and unfavorable exercise of discretion.
Baker White had married a U.S. citizen (father of her son) and alleged he physically and psychologically abused her; she obtained no‑contact orders and later regained custody of her son.
Between Sep–Nov 2017 she faced multiple state arrests (marijuana, shoplifting, arson, auto theft); several charges were still pending at the IJ hearing but were later dismissed for various reasons.
She applied for cancellation of removal (hardship for her U.S. citizen son and special‑rule cancellation for abused spouses); the IJ found her testimony not credible and cited associations with drug users, arrests, and other unfavorable factors.
Baker White moved to reopen after the Board initially denied her motion as untimely; this court remanded for the Board to consider the one‑year filing extension for battered spouses. On remand the Board held her motion timely but denied reopening for two independent reasons: (1) the new evidence was not material, and (2) she remained undeserving of discretionary relief.
Baker White appealed, arguing due‑process violations, that she presented new and material evidence, and that the Board abused its discretion; the Eighth Circuit denied her petition for review.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Due process	Baker White: denial to consider new evidence and reliance on dismissed charges/police reports violated her Fifth Amendment rights	Government: cancellation of removal is discretionary; no constitutionally protected interest in reopening for discretionary relief	Court: Due process claim fails — no protected liberty interest in discretionary cancellation of removal
New & material evidence	Baker White: newly submitted dismissals, custody order, and rehabilitation records were new and would change the outcome	Board/Govt: much evidence predated the IJ; dismissals and custody were not likely to change the IJ’s credibility‑based decision	Court: Board did not abuse discretion — the new evidence was not material to change the result
Abuse of discretion / discretionary relief	Baker White: Board improperly exercised discretion by denying reopening	Government: Board properly weighed the relevant favorable and unfavorable factors; IJ’s credibility findings remained dispositive	Court: No abuse of discretion; because the Board properly found no new/material evidence, alternative discretionary denial need not be reached but was proper

Rodriguez v. Barr, 952 F.3d 984 (8th Cir. 2020) (no due‑process right to discretionary cancellation of removal)
Sanchez‑Velasco v. Holder, 593 F.3d 733 (8th Cir. 2010) (cancellation is discretionary and does not give rise to a constitutionally protected liberty interest)
Guled v. Mukasey, 515 F.3d 872 (8th Cir. 2008) (adjustment/relief akin to executive clemency; no protected interest)
Degbe v. Sessions, 899 F.3d 651 (8th Cir. 2018) (evidence is new if unavailable at prior hearing; material if likely to change outcome)
Berte v. Ashcroft, 396 F.3d 993 (8th Cir. 2005) (materiality standard for motions to reopen)
Patel v. Sessions, 868 F.3d 719 (8th Cir. 2017) (abuse of discretion standard for denial of motions to reopen)
Njie v. Lynch, 808 F.3d 380 (8th Cir. 2015) (Board may deny motions to reopen on at least three independent grounds)
Sharif v. Barr, 965 F.3d 612 (8th Cir. 2020) (Board not required to mention every piece of evidence; entitled to presumption of regularity)