Elias Garcia-Tercero v. Todd Blanche

── Elias Garcia-Tercero v. Todd Blanche ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit Date: May 14, 2026 Category: General United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 25-1450 ___________________________ Elias Gaspar Garcia-Tercero Petitioner v. Todd Blanche, Acting Attorney General of the United States 1 Respondent ____________ Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ____________ Submitted: April 13, 2026 Filed: May 14, 2026 [Unpublished] ____________ Before GRUENDER, BENTON, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Elias Gasper Garcia-Tercero petitions for review of the final order of removal of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). Having jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, this court denies the petition. 1 Todd Blanche is automatically substituted as respondent in place of Pamela Bondi pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2).  Garcia-Tercero, a native and citizen of Guatemala, came to the United States without documentation in 2008. In May 2018, an immigration judge ordered him removed from the United States, with an alternative grant of voluntary departure. In August 2021, he filed his first motion to reopen, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. The BIA granted the motion, reinstating the voluntary departure period. He did not voluntarily depart. In November 2021, he filed a second motion to reopen asserting that, “as the son and father of United States citizens who has lived in the United States continuously since on or about February 2008, Respondent is statutorily eligible to request Cancellation of Removal relief pursuant to Section 240A(b) of the Immigration Nationality Act” (8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)). The BIA denied the motion in October 2023. It acknowledged that he now meets the physical presence requirement for cancellation of removal under Niz-Chavez, 593 U.S. 155 (2021). But it found him ineligible for relief because he overstayed the reinstated voluntary- departure period and was thus subject to “a 10-year ineligibility for cancellation of removal under Section 240A(b)(1) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1).” In November 2023, he filed his third motion to reopen—the one at issue here. In February 2025, the BIA denied the motion. Although it found that he “is not subject to the 10-year bar on cancellation of removal for having overstayed the voluntarily departure,” it issued a new finding that “he has not shown prima facie eligibility for cancellation of removal.” Specifically, he failed to show “a reasonable likelihood that the hardship to his qualifying relatives would be beyond that which would normally be expected to occur in the event of a respondent’s removal.” It also found he “did not present sufficient evidence addressing other eligibility requirements for cancellation of removal.” He appeals. This court reviews the BIA’s denial of motions to reopen for abuse of discretion. See Llanas-Trejo v. Garland, 53 F.4th 458, 463 (8th Cir. 2022). This court will not overturn the BIA’s decision unless the decision “is without rational explanation, departs from established policies, invidiously discriminates against a -2- particular race or group, or where the agency fails to consider all factors presented by the alien or distorts important aspects of the claim.” Rodriguez v. Barr, 952 F.3d 984, 991 (8th Cir. 2020). To adduce sufficient evidence to establish that he is reasonably likely to me