Sharif v. Barr, No. 19-1478 (8th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this Case
Petitioner sought review of the BIA's decision affirming the IJ's denial of his motion to reopen removal proceedings and to deny his motion to remand. The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to review the vast majority of petitioner's arguments concerning his motion to reopen his asylum and withholding of removal claims because they merely constitute a brief in opposition to the BIA's factual findings.
In regard to the CAT claim, the court held that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in determining that he had not shown facts that would likely change the result in the case on account of a material change in country conditions. In regard to the motion for remand, the court lacked jurisdiction to review petitioner's arguments to the extent they concern his asylum and withholding of removal claims; petitioner's claims that the BIA committed legal error lacked merit; and the court cannot say the BIA abused its discretion in determining that further proceedings on his motion to reopen his CAT claim were not warranted by the newly presented evidence attached to his motion to remand. Finally, the court rejected petitioner's Fifth Amendment due process claim.
Court Description: [Gruender, Author, with Smith, Chief Judge, and Loken, Circuit Judges] Petition for Review - Immigration. Petitioner seeks review of the BIA's decision denying his motion to reopen his removal proceedings; the court finds it lacks jurisdiction to review the majority of petitioner's arguments concerning his motion to reopen his asylum and withholding of removal claims because they merely constitute a brief in opposition to the BIA's fact findings and do not present questions of law; with respect to petitioner's CAT claim, the court has broader jurisdiction, but the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reopen as petitioner failed to demonstrate that changes in Somalia over the last decade amount to changed country conditions that would change the result in his case; with respect to petitioner's motion for remand, the court could not review the BIA's order to the extent it denied remand on the asylum and withholding of removal claims; the BIA did not abuse its discretion in determining that further proceedings on petitioner's motion to reopen his CAT claim were not warranted by the newly-presented evidence attached to the motion for remand; claim the BIA's handling of the matter violated petitioner's Fifth Amendment due process rights rejected.
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.