Rodriguez de Henriquez v. Barr, No. 18-2442 (8th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this Case
Petitioners appealed the BIA's denial of their motion to reconsider the IJ's denial of their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).
The Eighth Circuit held that circuit precedent, Ali v. Barr, 924 F.3d 983 (8th Cir. 2019), foreclosed petitioners' claim that the IJ lacked jurisdiction over their removal proceedings because the proceedings commenced with notices to appear that did not specify the date or time of their removal hearings. The court also held that the filing of a motion to reconsider does not toll the time for appeal of the underlying order; the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reconsider where the agency applied the proper standard and considered petitioners' contentions; and the BIA did not commit legal error or abuse its discretion when it denied petitioners' motion to reconsider the denial of CAT relief and its analysis of their torture claim was not inconsistent with the court's binding precedent. In this case, there was no evidence that the police official provided evidence to the Mara 18 gang, was aware that this act would result in torture, and thereafter breached his legal responsibility to intervene to prevent such activity.
Court Description: Loken, Author, with Kelly and Erickson, Circuit Judges] Petition for Review - Immigration. Argument that immigration judge lacked jurisdiction over removal proceeding because notice to appeal did not specify date or time of removal hearing is foreclosed by this court's decision in Ali v. Barr, 924 F.3d 983 (8th Cir. 2019). Motion to reconsider did not toll time for appealing underlying order; Board did not abuse its discretion in denying motion to reconsider, as the Board's stated reasons for denying reconsideration demonstrates that it applied the proper standard and considered petitioners' contentions. The Board did not commit legal error or abuse its discretion in denying motion to reconsider denial of relief under the Convention Against Torture, as there was no evidence police provided evidence to gang of petitioner's complaint, was aware this act would result in torture or otherwise breached its legal responsibility to intervene to prevent such activity. Thus, the Board did not err in it's analysis of the torture 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.