Raymundo Duran-Barraza v. Eric H. Holder, Jr., No. 14-3269 (8th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Loken, Bowman and Gruender, Circuit Judges] Petition for Review - Immigration. The court lacks jurisdiction to review the discretionary denial of cancellation of removal and the petition for review is denied.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 14-3269 ___________________________ Raymundo Duran-Barraza lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioner v. Loretta E. Lynch, Attorney General of the United States1 lllllllllllllllllllllRespondent ____________ Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ____________ Submitted: August 24, 2015 Filed: August 27, 2015 [Unpublished] ____________ Before LOKEN, BOWMAN, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. 1 Loretta E. Lynch has been appointed to serve as Attorney General of the United States and is substituted as respondent under Rule 43(c) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. Raymundo Duran-Barraza, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming the decision of an immigration judge (IJ) denying his application for cancellation of removal. We have carefully considered the record and the parties’ submissions, mindful that we do not review the discretionary denial of relief itself. See Guled v. Mukasey, 515 F.3d 872, 880 (8th Cir. 2008); see also Hernandez-Garcia v. Holder, 765 F.3d 815, 816–17 (8th Cir. 2014) (reiterating that a petitioner has no right to due process in the discretionary cancellation-of-removal remedy). In particular, we note that Duran-Barraza’s petition centers around his complaint that the IJ and BIA failed to adequately consider his evidence of hardship. Significantly, however, Duran-Barraza did not seek BIA review of the IJ’s findings on two other independently dispositive bases for denial of his application, namely, failure to show physical presence in the United States for ten continuous years and good moral character. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1) (stating the prerequisites for consideration of cancellation of removal). We deny the petition for review. -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.
