Benigno Hernandez-Cisneros v. Jefferson B. Sessions, III, No. 16-2582 (8th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Smith, Bowman and Benton, Circuit Judges] Petition for Review - Immigration. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioner's reconsideration request. [ March 07, 2017
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 16-2582 ___________________________ Benigno Hernandez-Cisneros lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioner v. Jefferson B. Sessions, III, Attorney General of the United States1 lllllllllllllllllllllRespondent ____________ Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ____________ Submitted: March 3, 2017 Filed: March 8, 2017 [Unpublished] ____________ Before SMITH, BOWMAN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. 1 Jefferson B. Sessions, III has been appointed to serve as Attorney General of the United States, and is substituted as respondent pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2). Mexican citizen Benigno Hernandez-Cisneros petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). Previously, an immigration judge (IJ) had granted Hernandez-Cisneros cancellation of removal on discretionary hardship grounds, and the BIA had issued an order vacating the IJ’s decision and remanding solely for entry of an order of removal. Hernandez-Cisneros sought to appeal the resulting order of removal. The BIA treated the appeal as a motion seeking reconsideration of its prior order, and found that Hernandez-Cisneros had not identified errors of fact or law establishing a basis to disturb its prior decision.2 After careful consideration, we conclude that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Hernandez-Cisneros’s reconsideration request. See Martinez v. Lynch, 785 F.3d 1262, 1264-65 (8th Cir. 2015). The petition is denied. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________ 2 The BIA’s determination that Hernandez-Cisneros failed to submit the requisite new and material evidence for a motion to reopen is not before us in this petition for review. See Jenkins v. Winter, 540 F.3d 742, 751 (8th Cir. 2008) (issues not raised in opening brief are deemed waived). -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.
