Lara-Nieto v. Barr, No. 18-2232 (8th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this Case
In consolidated appeals, petitioner sought review of DHS's reinstatement of prior orders of removal and challenged the dismissal of related complaints that were filed in federal district court. The Eighth Circuit denied the petition for review in the lead case and affirmed the district court's judgment in the consolidated cases.
The court held that the district court properly dismissed petitioner's lawsuits in federal district court, based on lack of jurisdiction, where he sought review of DHS's reinstatement of the removal order and to compel DHS to adjudicate a motion to reopen; the relevant statute stated that a petition for review filed with an appropriate court of appeals shall be the sole and exclusive means for judicial review of the order of removal; the court lacked jurisdiction to consider petitioner's arguments concerning the validity of the underlying removal order; substantial evidence supported DHS's decision to reinstate the removal order, because petitioner conceded his identity, the existence of the removal order, and that he unlawfully reentered the United States; and there was no error in the IJ's determination that petitioner failed to show that he was eligible for withholding of removal or relief under the Convention Against Torture.
Court Description: Shepherd, Author, with Loken and Stras, Circuit Judges] Petition for Review - Immigration. The district court properly dismissed petitioner's two law suits regarding his previously-entered removal order for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction; the statute governing reinstatement of removal orders prevents petitioner from attacking the validity of the underlying removal order in a petition for review of the reinstatement of the order; as a result, this court lacks jurisdiction to consider petitioner's arguments concerning the validity of the underlying removal order; as petitioner concedes his identity, the existence of the removal order and his unlawful reentry into the U.S., substantial evidence supported the agency's decision to reinstate the removal order; petitioner failed to show a reasonable probability that he would be persecuted on the basis of a protected ground if he returned to Mexico, and the agency did not err in denying his request for withholding of removal; denial of CAT relief affirmed.
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.