Ricardo Jimenez-Flores v. Merrick B. Garland

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 22-3160
___________________________
Ricardo Jimenez-Flores
Petitioner
v.
Merrick B. Garland
Respondent
____________
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
____________
Submitted: May 23, 2024
Filed: May 29, 2024
[Unpublished]
____________
Before SMITH, BENTON, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Mexican citizen Ricardo Jimenez-Flores petitions for review of an order of
the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying him cancellation of removal.
Having jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, this court denies the petition.

-- 1 of 3 --

-2-
Jimenez-Flores challenges the agency’s jurisdiction over his removal
proceedings. While he acknowledges this court’s precedent forecloses the argument
that jurisdiction failed to vest because the Notice to Appear (NTA) issued by the
Department of Homeland Security lacked time and date information, see Ali v. Barr,
924 F.3d 983 (8th Cir. 2019), he nevertheless urges the court to “reconsider” its
precedent. This court finds no basis for reversal. Cf. Mader v. United States, 654
F.3d 794, 800 (8th Cir. 2011) (en banc) (“It is a cardinal rule in this circuit that one
panel is bound by the decision of a prior panel.”).
Jimenez-Flores also raises a claim-processing argument, asserting that his
objection to the NTA—raised after the immigration judge (IJ) issued its decision
denying cancellation of removal and granting voluntary departure, but before the
BIA resolved Jimenez-Flores’s administrative appeal—was timely under BIA
precedent, and requires remand to the BIA to terminate the removal proceedings or
order service of a complete NTA. This court concludes that, under the circumstances
presented in this case, where “substantive matters” were discussed and determined
before any objections were raised, the argument is without merit. See Amador-
Morales v. Garland, 94 F.4th 701, 704-05 (8th Cir. 2024).
Jimenez-Flores also asserts that the BIA applied an “incorrect legal standard”
when it considered the hardship factors in his case. This court has jurisdiction to
review the application of the statutory exceptional and extremely unusual hardship
standard to an undisputed set of facts. See Wilkinson v. Garland, 601 U.S. 209, 217
(2024). Because this mixed question of law and fact is primarily factual, our review
is deferential. See id. at 225. The court finds Jimenez-Flores’s argument is
unsupported by the record. The record shows that the IJ discussed the financial and
familial burdens Jimenez-Flores’s qualifying family members would face if he were
removed; Jimenez-Flores’s divorce from the mother of his eldest children, and the
Salvadoran nationality of the mother of his younger children; the lack of serious
medical or educational issues in the case; the adverse country conditions presented
in the record; and the emotional burden that would be expected when a parent is
removed. The BIA adopted the IJ’s findings and reasoning; considered and

-- 2 of 3 --

-3-
appropriately rejected Jimenez-Flores’s appellate arguments as unpersuasive; and
concluded that the hardship factors in the record, considered “both singularly and
cumulatively,” did not meet the required burden of proof. See id. at 215 (citing In
re Monreal-Aguinaga, 23 I. & N. Dec. 56 (BIA 2001)). To the extent the agency
considered factors that Jimenez-Flores believes are irrelevant to the hardship
analysis or are “speculative,” those factors do not negate the agency’s other findings
supporting the denial of relief. See Malonga v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 546, 550 (8th
Cir. 2008) (where BIA adopts IJ’s decision and adds its own reasoning, this court
reviews both decisions).
Finally, because this court concludes that Jimenez-Flores has not shown the
agency committed any fundamental procedural error, it follows that there can be no
due process violation. See Alva-Arellano v. Lynch, 811 F.3d 1064, 1066 (8th Cir.
2016) (de novo review; to establish due process violation, noncitizen must
demonstrate both a fundamental procedural error, and prejudice).
The petition is denied. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
______________________________

-- 3 of 3 --