Court Description: Per Curiam - Before Gruender, Bowman and Shepherd, Circuit Judges] Petition for Review - Immigration. Petitioner has failed to raise a viable legal or constitutional challenge to the discretionary denial of cancellation based on hardship to a qualifying relative; petitioner's challenge to denial of special-rule cancellation under the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act of 1997 was based on an unreviewable factual determination that petitioner's registration for benefits was untimely; other challenges were waived by petitioner's failure to meaningfully raise them in his brief.
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 16-3496 ___________________________ Jose Domingo Hernand Santos lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioner v. Jefferson B. Sessions, III,1 Attorney General of the United States lllllllllllllllllllllRespondent ____________ Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ____________ Submitted: July 20, 2017 Filed: July 28, 2017 [Unpublished] ____________ Before GRUENDER, BOWMAN, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Guatemalan citizen Jose Domingo Hernand Santos petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal from the 1 Jefferson B. Sessions, III, is substituted for his predecessor under Rule 43(c)(2) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. decision of an immigration judge (IJ) who denied him asylum, withholding of removal, relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), cancellation of removal, and special-rule cancellation under the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act of 1997 (NACARA). Santos argues that (1) he qualified for at least one of the foregoing forms of relief, (2) the BIA erred by failing to detail its own rationale for denying relief after adopting the IJ’s reasoning, (3) he is entitled to cancellation of removal because his removal will present an exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to his United States citizen daughter, and (4) he is entitled to NACARA relief. To begin, we conclude that the BIA sufficiently and adequately explained its decision. As to the denial of relief, Santos has not raised a viable legal or constitutional challenge to the discretionary denial of cancellation based on hardship to a qualifying relative. Further, his challenge to the denial of NACARA relief is based on the unreviewable factual determination that Santos failed to register in a timely manner for NACARA benefits. Finally, Santos waived his appeal of the agency’s asylum, withholding, and CAT determinations by failing to meaningfully challenge them in his brief. See Chay-Velasquez v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 751, 756 (8th Cir. 2004).2 The petition for review is denied. ______________________________ 2 In any event, we conclude that substantial evidence supports the denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief. -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.
