United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 20-1504 ___________________________ Carlos Enrique Urrutia Robles lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioner v. Merrick B. Garland, Attorney General of the United States lllllllllllllllllllllRespondent ____________ Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ____________ Submitted: October 21, 2021 Filed: January 26, 2022 ____________ Before LOKEN, WOLLMAN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. ____________ LOKEN, Circuit Judge. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) placed Carlos Enrique Urrutia Robles in removal proceedings following his arrest for injuring a pedestrian while driving under the influence. Urrutia conceded removability and applied for exercise of the Attorney General’s discretion to grant cancellation of removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b. After a hearing, the Immigration Judge (IJ) found that Urrutia satisfied the four eligibility requirements of § 1229b(b)(1). Turning to exercise of the Attorney General’s discretion, the IJ concluded that Urrutia’s “significant negative factors” were outweighed by positive factors and granted relief. DHS filed an administrative appeal. Reviewing the IJ’s discretionary determination de novo, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denied cancellation of removal, ordered Urrutia removed to Mexico, and subsequently denied his timely motion to reopen proceedings. Urrutia petitioned for review of both BIA orders. We denied the petition, concluding that we lacked jurisdiction to overturn the BIA’s initial discretionary decision, and that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Urrutia’s motion to reopen. Urrutia Robles v. Barr, 940 F.3d 420, 424 (8th Cir. 2019) (Urrutia I), cert. denied, 141 S. Ct. 1047 (2021). Nearly three months after we decided Urrutia I, Urrutia filed a second motion with the BIA to reopen the proceedings, arguing that newly discovered evidence warranted reopening and that his due diligence and extraordinary circumstances “should compel statutory tolling of the time and number limits” on motions to reopen. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2) and (3). On March 6, 2020, the BIA denied Urrutia’s second motion to reopen his cancellation of removal application. The Decision explained that, in its prior final administrative decision: [w]e balanced the respondent’s equities and negative factors before concluding that he did not warrant discretionary relief, given his repeated driving under the influence (“DUI”) offenses, including a 2017 accident resulting in a pedestrian suffering a traumatic brain injury and fractured leg. Stating that it “considered both of [Urrutia’s] filings in our decision,” the BIA concluded (i) Urrutia “has not demonstrated that an exception to the time and number limits applies”; (ii) because “the supplemental evidence is not likely to change the outcome of the proceedings, it does not warrant a new hearing”; and (iii) Urrutia “has not established an exceptional situation warranting sua sponte reopening” under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (2020). Urrutia petitions for review of the denial of his second motion to reopen. We deny the petition for review. -2- Motions to reopen removal proceedings are disfavored because there is a “strong public interest” in litigation finality. Urrutia I, 940 F.3d at 423, quoting Gebremaria v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 734, 737 (8th Cir. 2004). Reflecting that disfavor, …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals