Mateo Raymundo Rafael v. Eric H, Holder, Jr., No. 12-1596 (8th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Petition for Review - Immigration. The court lacks jurisdiction ro review the BIA's decision to deny special rule cancellation of removal; substantial evidence supported the denial of asylum.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 12-1596 ___________________________ Mateo Raymundo Rafael lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioner v. Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General of the United States lllllllllllllllllllllRespondent ____________ Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ____________ Submitted: December 26, 2010 Filed: January 7, 2013 [Unpublished] ____________ Before LOKEN, BOWMAN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Mateo Raymundo Rafael, a citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) which upheld an immigration judge s denial of special rule cancellation of removal under the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act and denial of asylum.1 After careful review, we find no basis for reversal. First, we conclude that we lack jurisdiction to review the BIA s decision regarding Rafael s eligibility for special rule cancellation of removal, because that decision was based on a purely factual issue. See Molina Jerez v. Holder, 625 F.3d 1058, 1068-69 (8th Cir. 2010). Second, as to Rafael s request for asylum, we conclude that substantial evidence supported the BIA s denial of relief. See Khrystodorov v. Mukasey, 551 F.3d 775, 781 (8th Cir. 2008). Accordingly, the petition for review is denied. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________ 1 Rafael was also denied withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture, but he does not address these claims in his brief. See Chay-Velasquez v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 751, 756 (8th Cir. 2004) (petitioner waives claim that is not meaningfully raised in opening brief). -2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
