Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Pittman Bonard CHEAPOO Petitioner v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS, III, Attorney General of the United States Respondent
[Unpublished]
An immigration judge (IJ) previously found that Pittman Bonard Cheapoo, a citizen of Liberia, was removable but should be granted cancellation of removal. On March 3, 2017, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) vacated the grant of cancellation of removal and ordered Cheapoo removed from the United States. On March 15, 2017, Cheapoo filed a motion to reopen or reconsider, contending that the BIA had no legal authority to order his removal and could only remand his case to the IJ. He also expressed his desire to remain in the United States in order to have a relationship with his daughter and claimed, in a conclusory fashion, that removal would cause her emotional difficulties and financial hardship. On May 30, 2017, the BIA found that neither reopening nor reconsideration was warranted and denied Cheapoo’s motion. Cheapoo filed the instant petition for review on June 8, 2017, stating that he was appealing the BIA’s decision that vacated the IJ’s grant of cancellation of removal and ordered him removed. Cheapoo’s brief in this court likewise is devoted to expressing his disagreement with the agency’s March 2017 decision.1
Because Cheapoo did not timely petition for review of the March 3, 2017, decision, this court’s jurisdiction is limited to reviewing the BIA’s May 30, 2017, order denying his motion to reopen or reconsider. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1) (petition for review must be filed within 30 days of final order of removal); Mshihiri v. Holder, 753 F.3d 785, 788-89 (8th Cir. 2014) (court has jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 to review final orders of removal, including motions to reopen and for reconsideration of previous BIA decision; timely filing of motion to reopen or reconsider does not toll time for appeal of underlying order). We conclude that the BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying Cheapoo’s motion to reopen or reconsider. See Mshihiri, 753 F.3d at 789 (standard of review).
The petition for review is denied. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
FOOTNOTES
1. Cheapoo’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis is granted.
PER CURIAM.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 17-2352
Decided: March 22, 2018
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)