United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 19-3517 ___________________________ Sophia C. Baker White lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioner v. Monty Wilkinson, Acting Attorney General of the United States1 lllllllllllllllllllllRespondent ____________ Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ____________ Submitted: October 22, 2020 Filed: March 4, 2021 ____________ Before SMITH, Chief Judge, LOKEN and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges. ____________ SMITH, Chief Judge. Sophia C. Baker White, a Swiss native and citizen of the United Kingdom, overstayed her United States visa. She was charged with removability, and the 1 Monty Wilkinson is serving as Acting Attorney General of the United States, and is substituted as respondent pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c). immigration judge (IJ) found her removable. Baker White then applied for cancellation of removal. The IJ denied her application, and she appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”). The Board upheld the denial and dismissed her appeal. Several months later, Baker White filed a motion to reopen the cancellation-of- removal proceedings, arguing that she had a change in circumstances that warranted reopening. The Board denied her motion as untimely because it was filed more than 90 days after the Board had issued a final administrative decision. The Board, however, had failed to consider 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(iv), which extends the filing deadline to one year for certain “battered spouses, children and parents,” so Baker White petitioned this court to review the Board’s decision. We remanded Baker White’s case to the Board after the government filed an unopposed motion to remand for the Board to consider the one-year extension. On remand, the Board found that Baker White’s filing was timely, but it again denied her motion to reopen. The Board denied Baker White’s motion for two independent reasons: First, it held that Baker White did not submit new and material evidence showing that a different outcome would be reached regarding her removal. Second, the Board held she was not entitled to discretionary relief, based on her moral character. Baker White petitioned this court for review. Baker White argues that the Board erred in three ways when it denied her motion to reopen: (1) the Board violated her due-process rights, (2) the evidence she presented to the Board was new and material, and (3) the Board improperly used its discretion to deny her motion. We deny her petition for review. I. Background Baker White moved to the United States in 2006 as the child of an L-1 visa holder. In 2012, she transitioned to an F-1 student visa. Baker White complied with -2- her visa for about two and a half years but then stopped attending college, ending compliance. In May 2014, Baker White married her son’s father; both the son and father are U.S. citizens. During the marriage, Baker White’s husband physically, emotionally, and psychologically abused her. Eventually, Baker White obtained two no-contact orders against her husband, which he violated in July 2017. Shortly thereafter, Minnesota authorities arrested Baker White four times within a …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals