United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 22-1738 ___________________________ Rosaura Flores Brizuela; A. A.L. F.; A. M.L. F.; E. A.C. F. Petitioners v. Merrick B. Garland, Attorney General of the United States Respondent ____________ Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ____________ Submitted: March 15, 2023 Filed: June 27, 2023 ____________ Before SHEPHERD, ERICKSON, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges. ____________ SHEPHERD, Circuit Judge. Rosaura Flores Brizuela and her children, natives and citizens of Honduras, petition this Court for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) order affirming an immigration judge’s (IJ) decision ordering them removed and denying their claims for relief. Having jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, we deny the petition. I. Brizuela and her children entered the United States on November 8, 2017, and were subsequently issued Notices to Appear (NTAs) by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), charging them with removability pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(7)(A)(i)(I) (“[A]ny immigrant at the time of application for admission . . . who is not in possession of a valid unexpired immigrant visa, reentry permit, border crossing identification card, or other valid entry document . . . is inadmissible.”). However, they were extended humanitarian parole on November 11, 2017, to run until November 10, 2018.1 Nonetheless, removal proceedings commenced; Brizuela applied for asylum with her children as derivative applicants.2 Brizuela additionally applied for statutory withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). An initial hearing was conducted on May 23, 2018, where Brizuela conceded to the charges in the NTAs. The IJ held a merits hearing on September 11, 2018. There, Brizuela contended that she was not removable because her humanitarian parole would not expire for another two months and, thus, the proceedings should be terminated. The IJ ultimately decided to continue the proceedings so DHS could have “a chance to address th[e] issue,” though it recognized the matter would become moot on November 10, 2018, when the parole status expired. The IJ reset the merits hearing for December 14, 2018. At that hearing, Brizuela conceded that her parole had expired and that she was removable. The IJ then took up the issue of Brizuela’s claims for relief. 1 “The Attorney General may . . . in his discretion parole into the United States temporarily under such conditions as he may prescribe only on a case-by-case basis for urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit any alien applying for admission to the United States . . . .” 8 U.S.C. § 1182(d)(5)(A). 2 Given the derivative nature of the relief sought by the children, we refer only to Brizuela throughout this opinion. -2- As relevant to this appeal, Brizuela testified that, in Honduras, her partner, Darwin Chavarria, was killed by MS-13 “gangsters” in 2013. Brizuela did not witness his death, nor did she know why the gangsters killed him. Darwin’s mother reported the incident to law enforcement, and the police arrested one of the gangsters (but apparently not …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals