Zeah v. Holder, Jr., No. 12-3653 (8th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this CasePetitioner, a citizen and national of Nigeria, petitioned for review of the the BIA's order affirming the denial of her application for cancellation of removal. Determining that it had jurisdiction to review constitutional claims or questions of law, the court concluded that the IJ did not commit procedural error in excluding the testimony of petitioner's son and daughter where the testimony was cumulative and unnecessary. The court also concluded that the court need not consider whether the IJ erred in not qualifying more of petitioner's expert's testimony because petitioner was unable to show prejudice. Finally, the court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to review the BIA's discretionary decision to deny petitioner relief based on her prior sham marriage. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review.
Court Description: Petition for Review - Immigration. While the decision to grant cancellation of removal is a discretionary act by the Attorney General which this court may not review, the court does retain jurisdiction to review constitutional claims or questions of law, such as are presented here; IJ did not violate petitioner's due process rights by refusing to hear testimony from family members as the evidence was cumulative; the court would not consider a claim that the IJ erred in refusing to admit certain expert testimony in the absence of a showing of prejudice.
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.