Lucio Guzman-Mendez v. Merrick Garland, No. 21-3495 (8th Cir. 2022)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: [Per Curiam - Before Colloton, Gruender, and Benton, Circuit Judges] Petition for Review - Immigration. The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying petitioner's motion to reopen; the petition for review is denied without further comment.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 21-3495 ___________________________ Lucio Arturo Guzman-Mendez lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioner v. Merrick B. Garland, Attorney General of the United States lllllllllllllllllllllRespondent ____________ Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ____________ Submitted: August 10, 2022 Filed: August 15, 2022 [Unpublished] ____________ Before COLLOTON, GRUENDER, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Mexican citizen Lucio Arturo Guzman-Mendez petitions for review of a 2021 Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) order, which affirmed an immigration judge’s decision denying his motion to reopen or reconsider the denial of cancellation of removal and vacated the immigration judge’s alternative grant of voluntary departure.1 The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying Guzman-Mendez’s motion to reopen. See Baker White v. Wilkinson, 990 F.3d 600, 605 (8th Cir. 2021) (explaining the standard of review). The BIA rationally concluded the evidence presented was neither new nor material because it was cumulative or a continuation of the hardship evidence he had already presented and would not likely change the result in his case-i.e., the denial of cancellation of removal based on his failure to show an “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship.” See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1229a(c)(7)(B), 1229b(b)(1)(D); Urrutia Robles v. Garland, 23 F.4th 1061, 1065 (8th Cir. 2022); Campos Julio v. Barr, 953 F.3d 550, 553 (8th Cir. 2020); Urrutia Robles v. Barr, 940 F.3d 420, 423 (8th Cir. 2019); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1) (2021). Any alleged inconsistency with unpublished agency decisions was insufficient to show, in this case, that the BIA departed from its established policies. See Bakor v. Barr, 958 F.3d 732, 735 (8th Cir. 2020); Perez-Rodriguez v. Barr, 951 F.3d 972, 976-77 (8th Cir. 2020). Finally, to the extent that Guzman-Mendez argues the BIA incorrectly concluded the new evidence was unlikely to change the result, his arguments are unreviewable. See Caballero-Martinez v. Barr, 920 F.3d 543, 548 & n.1 (8th Cir. 2019); see also Garcia-Ortiz v. Garland, 20 F.4th 1212, 1215-17 (8th Cir. 2021); Nunez-Portillo v. Holder, 763 F.3d 974, 977 (8th Cir. 2014); Solis v. Holder, 647 F.3d 831, 833 (8th Cir. 2011). The petition for review is denied. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________ 1 Guzman-Mendez does not challenge the denial of reconsideration or voluntary departure and has therefore waived review of those issues. See Chay-Velasquez v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 751, 756 (8th Cir. 2004). -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.
