Celina Nieto-Lopez v. William P. Barr, No. 18-1642 (8th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Gruender, Stras and Kobes, Circuit Judges] Petition for Review - Immigration. Orders denying asylum, withholding of removal, CAT protection and a motion to reopen affirmed without comment. [ October 11, 2019
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 18-1642 ___________________________ Celina Aracely Nieto-Lopez; Oscar Armando Barahona-Nieto lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioners v. William P. Barr, Attorney General of the United States lllllllllllllllllllllRespondent ___________________________ No. 18-3163 ___________________________ Celina Aracely Nieto-Lopez lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioner v. William P. Barr, Attorney General of the United States lllllllllllllllllllllRespondent ____________ Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ____________ Submitted: October 4, 2019 Filed: October 15, 2019 [Unpublished] ____________ Before GRUENDER, STRAS, and KOBES, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. In these consolidated matters, Salvadoran citizens Celina Nieto-Lopez (Nieto) and her son, Oscar Armando Barahona-Nieto (collectively, Petitioners) petition for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) which dismissed their appeal from the decision of an immigration judge (IJ) denying them asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) (Appeal No. 18-1642). Nieto also individually petitions for review of a BIA order denying Petitioners’ motion to reopen proceedings (Appeal No. 18-3163). Upon careful consideration, we find no basis for reversal. We conclude that Petitioners’ due process claim lacks merit, see Alva-Arellano v. Lynch, 811 F.3d 1064, 1066 (8th Cir. 2016) (standard of review; to establish due process violation, alien must show a fundamental procedural error and prejudice); and that there was no abuse of discretion in the BIA’s denial of the motion to reopen, see Vargas v. Holder, 567 F.3d 387, 391 (8th Cir. 2009) (standard of review). The petitions for review are denied. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________ -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.
