Flora Holmes v. Merrick B. Garland, No. 21-2135 (8th Cir. 2022)
Annotate this Case
Petitioner entered the United States on an F-1 nonimmigrant student visa on Dec. 29, 2009. Subsequently, she falsely claimed to be a U.S. citizen to gain employment, and the Department of Homeland Security served Petitioner with a Notice to Appear, charging her with being removable under 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1227(a)(1)(C)(i) (providing for the removal of an alien admitted as a nonimmigrant who has failed to maintain that nonimmigrant status or to comply with the conditions of that status) and Sec. 1227(a)(3)(D)(i) (providing for the removal of an alien who has falsely represented herself to be a United States citizen for any benefits such as employment). Petitioner proceeded pro see, explicitly waiving her right to counsel and denying the district court's offer of a continuance to secure counsel. Eventually, Petitioner obtained counsel.
The Immigration Judge denied relief, and the Board of Immigration Appeals denied Petitioner's request for remand after she cited a change in circumstances.
The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The Immigration Judge did not deny Petitioner her right to Due Process as the Immigration Judge did not commit a "fundamental procedural error" regarding the appointment of counsel. Additionally, the Immigration Judge did not violate Petitioner's Due Process when it refused to remand based on changed circumstances.
Court Description: [Shepherd, Author, with Loken and Colloton, Circuit Judges] Petition for Review - Immigration. With respect to petitioner's claim that the IJ violated her due process rights, the claim is rejected as the IJ advised her of her rights and there was nothing about the hearing that calls into doubt the fundamental fairness of the proceeding; as there was no due process violation, petitioner's admission of the charges and concession of removability at the hearing could be admitted at a subsequent hearing; petitioner's motion to remand was actually a motion to reopen and the motion failed to comply with the substantive requirements for such a motion; accordingly, the agency did not commit a procedural error when it denied the motion.
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.