Horacio Barrera v. Monty Wilkinson, No. 20-2689 (8th Cir. 2021)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: [Per Curiam - Before Benton, Melloy and Kelly, Circuit Judges] Petition for Review - Immigration. The IJ did not clearly err in denying petitioner's request for a further continuance; the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioner's request for a remand because he failed to demonstrate the outcome of his proceeding would likely change on remand. [ March 10, 2021 ]
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 20-2689 ___________________________ Horacio Ocampo Barrera lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioner v. Monty Wilkinson, Acting Attorney General of the United States1 lllllllllllllllllllllRespondent ____________ Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ____________ Submitted: March 5, 2021 Filed: March 11, 2021 [Unpublished] ____________ Before BENTON, MELLOY, and KELLY, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. 1 Monty Wilkinson is serving as Acting Attorney General of the United States, and is substituted as respondent pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c). Horacio Ocampo Barrera, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), which denied his motion to remand and dismissed his appeal from an immigration judge’s (IJ’s) decision denying his request for a further continuance to seek cancellation of removal. After carefully considering the record and the parties’ arguments on appeal, we conclude that the IJ did not clearly err in denying a further continuance for lack of good cause shown, particularly given that Ocampo Barrera already had been granted multiple continuances over a six-year period but was unable to establish grounds for relief. See Choge v. Lynch, 806 F.3d 438, 441 (8th Cir. 2015) (standard of review); see also Mogeni v. Holder, 779 F.3d 847, 849-50 (8th Cir. 2015); Thimran v. Holder, 599 F.3d 841, 844-45 (8th Cir. 2010); 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.29, 1240.6. We further conclude that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying remand because Ocampo Barrera failed to demonstrate the outcome of his proceedings would likely change. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(B); Caballero-Martinez v. Barr, 920 F.3d 543, 548 (8th Cir. 2019); Vargas v. Holder, 567 F.3d 387, 389-91, 389 n.4 (8th Cir. 2009); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1). Ocampo Barrera’s remaining arguments are without merit. Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. ______________________________ -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.
