Celina Nieto-Lopez v. William P. Barr ( 2019 )


Menu:
  •       United States Court of Appeals
    For the Eighth Circuit
    ___________________________
    No. 18-1642
    ___________________________
    Celina Aracely Nieto-Lopez; Oscar Armando Barahona-Nieto
    lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioners
    v.
    William P. Barr, Attorney General of the United States
    lllllllllllllllllllllRespondent
    ___________________________
    No. 18-3163
    ___________________________
    Celina Aracely Nieto-Lopez
    lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioner
    v.
    William P. Barr, Attorney General of the United States
    lllllllllllllllllllllRespondent
    ____________
    Petition for Review of an Order of the
    Board of Immigration Appeals
    ____________
    Submitted: October 4, 2019
    Filed: October 15, 2019
    [Unpublished]
    ____________
    Before GRUENDER, STRAS, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.
    ____________
    PER CURIAM.
    In these consolidated matters, Salvadoran citizens Celina Nieto-Lopez (Nieto)
    and her son, Oscar Armando Barahona-Nieto (collectively, Petitioners) petition for
    review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) which dismissed their
    appeal from the decision of an immigration judge (IJ) denying them asylum,
    withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT)
    (Appeal No. 18-1642). Nieto also individually petitions for review of a BIA order
    denying Petitioners’ motion to reopen proceedings (Appeal No. 18-3163).
    Upon careful consideration, we find no basis for reversal. We conclude that
    Petitioners’ due process claim lacks merit, see Alva-Arellano v. Lynch, 
    811 F.3d 1064
    , 1066 (8th Cir. 2016) (standard of review; to establish due process violation,
    alien must show a fundamental procedural error and prejudice); and that there was no
    abuse of discretion in the BIA’s denial of the motion to reopen, see Vargas v. Holder,
    
    567 F.3d 387
    , 391 (8th Cir. 2009) (standard of review).
    The petitions for review are denied. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
    ______________________________
    -2-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 18-1642

Filed Date: 10/15/2019

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/15/2019