Horacio Barrera v. Monty Wilkinson ( 2021 )


Menu:
  •                   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    [Unpublished]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-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 20-2689

Filed Date: 3/11/2021

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 3/11/2021