Enio Mazariegos-Chojolan v. Jefferson B. Sessions, No. 16-4478 (8th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Benton, Bowman and Kelly, Circuit Judges] Petition for Review - Immigration. Whether petitioner registered for benefits under American Baptist Churches v. Thornburgh, 760 F. Supp. 796 (N.D. Cal. 1991) is a purely factual issue over which this court lacks jurisdiction; petition for review dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. [ December 19, 2017
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 16-4478 ___________________________ Enio Mazariegos-Chojolan lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioner v. Jefferson B. Sessions, III, Attorney General of the United States lllllllllllllllllllllRespondent ____________ Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ____________ Submitted: December 14, 2017 Filed: December 20, 2017 [Unpublished] ____________ Before BENTON, BOWMAN, and KELLY, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. An immigration judge denied the request of Guatemalan citizen Enio Mazariegos-Chojolan for special-rule cancellation of removal under section 203 of the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central America Relief Act of 1997 (NACARA) because Mazariegos-Chojolan failed to register for benefits under the settlement agreement in American Baptist Churches v. Thornburgh, (“ABC”), 760 F. Supp. 796 (N.D. Cal. 1991) (approving a settlement that required eligible Guatemalans to notify the INS in writing by December 31, 1991, of their intent to receive the agreement’s benefits). The Board of Immigration Appeals dismissed Mazariegos-Chojolan’s appeal from this decision, and he now petitions this Court for review. Although Mazariegos-Cholojan couches much of his argument in legal terms, the disposition of his claim depends upon the critical factual determination whether he registered for ABC benefits in a timely fashion. See Manani v. Filip, 552 F.3d 894, 900 n.3 (8th Cir. 2009) (noting that an alien’s recitation of “due process” and legal precedent in her brief “does not convert her attack on the BIA’s exercise of discretion into a colorable constitutional” or legal claim over which this Court would have jurisdiction). Mazariegos-Cholojan’s NACARA claim is not properly before this Court because the agency denied relief based on his failure to register for ABC benefits in a timely fashion. See Molina Jerez v. Holder, 625 F.3d 1058, 1069 (8th Cir. 2010) (recognizing that whether an alien “registered for ABC benefits in a timely manner is a purely factual issue over which this court lacks jurisdiction”). The petition is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. ______________________________ -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.
