Case ID: f-appx_678/html/0464-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Benigno HERNANDEZ-CISNEROS, Petitioner v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS, III, Attorney General of the United States
      , Respondent
    No. 16-2582
    United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
    Submitted: March 3, 2017
    Filed: March 8, 2017
    Joseph Lopez Wilson, Omaha, NE, for Petitioner
    Karen Yolanda Drummond, Stefanie N. Hennes, Trial Attorney, Carl H. McIntyre, Oil Oil, OIL, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent
    Before SMITH, BOWMAN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
      . Jefferson B, Sessions, III has been appointed to serve as Attorney General of the United States, and is substituted as respondent pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2).
    
   PER CURIAM.

Mexican citizen Benigno Hernandez-Cisneros petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). Previously, an immigration judge (IJ) had granted Hernandez-Cisneros cancellation of removal on discretionary hardship grounds, and the BIA had issued an order vacating the IJ’s decision and remanding solely for entry of an order of removal. Hernandez-Cisneros sought to appeal the resulting order of removal. The BIA treated the appeal as a motion seeking reconsideration of its prior order, and found that Hernandez-Cisneros had not identified errors of fact or law establishing a basis to disturb its prior decision. After careful consideration, we conclude that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Hernandez-Cisneros’s reconsideration request. See Martinez v. Lynch, 785 F.3d 1262, 1264-65 (8th Cir. 2015). The petition is denied. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. 
      
      . The BIA’s determination that Hernandez-Cisneros failed to submit the requisite new and material evidence for a motion to reopen is not before us in this petition for review. See Jenkins v. Winter, 540 F.3d 742, 751 (8th Cir. 2008) (issues not raised in opening brief are deemed waived).