Mendez-Gomez v. Barr, No. 18-2109 (8th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this Case
The Eighth Circuit denied a petition for review of DHS's reinstatement of a prior order for petitioner's removal and the BIA's decision affirming the IJ's denial of his applications for withholding of removal and deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).
The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to review the reinstatement of the prior removal order because the issue was not exhausted; petitioner failed to show prejudice and could not succeed on his claim that DHS violated his due process rights by continuing to interrogate him without his attorney present; and petitioner failed to exhaust his administrative remedies regarding his claims for withholding of removal and protection under the CAT. In this case, petitioner failed to make a showing that the Guatemalan government would be unable or unwilling to protect him from a loan shark, and petitioner failed to make any meaningful argument to the BIA regarding his CAT claim.
Court Description: Shepherd, Author, with Arnold and Erickson, Circuit Judges] Petition for Review - Immigration. The court lacked jurisdiction to review the reinstatement of a prior removal order as the issue had not been exhausted; on claim that DHS violated his due process rights by continuing to question him after he requested an attorney, petitioner could not show prejudice because the presence of an attorney would not have changed petitioner's status as an alien who illegally reentered the U.S. following the entry of a removal order, which are the only issues in a reinstatement proceeding; in order to qualify for withholding of removal, petitioner had to show that the Guatemalan government would be unable or unwilling to protect him from the person threatening him harm over a bad debt; the IJ found against petitioner on this issue, and he failed to raise the issue before the BIA; as a result, he had not exhausted his administrative remedies on the issue, and it could not be reviewed; petitioner failed to raise any meaningful argument on his CAT claim before the BIA, and the court would not address the unexhausted claim.
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.