Inzunza Reyna v. Barr, No. 18-1614 (8th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this CaseThe Eighth Circuit denied a petition for review of the BIA's decision finding petitioner ineligible for cancellation of removal because he sustained a prior conviction for a crime involving moral turpitude when he was convicted of theft by receiving in violation of Nebraska law. The court also held that Ali v. Barr, 924 F.3d 983, 986 (8th Cir. 2019), foreclosed petitioner's claim that neither the IJ nor the BIA had subject matter jurisdiction over his removal proceedings, because the initial notice to appear served on petitioner did not include information about when and where to appear.
Court Description: Colloton, Author, with Melloy and Shepherd, Circuit Judges] Petition for Review - Immigration. The BIA did not err in determining petitioner was ineligible for cancellation of removal because he had been convicted of a crime of moral turpitude, theft by receiving in violation of Neb. Rev. Stat. Sec. 28-517; claim that the IJ and BIA did not have subject matter jurisdiction because the initial notice to appear did not include information about where and when to appear rejected. See Ali v. Barr, 924 F.3d 983, 986 (8th Cir. 2019).
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.