The 8th Circuit (a) found that the question of proper service of the NTA, though it occurred in the 9th cir, was governed by 8th cir caselaw on appeal; and (b) it found that minors aged 14-18 can receive notice of an NTA, consistently with Due Process and with the statute - disagreeing with the 9th cir in Flores-Chavez v. Ashcroft, 362 F.3d 1150, 1162 (9th Cir. 2004). Judge Bye dissented, arguing that 9th Cir law should govern service within the 9th Cir, because a contrary result would encourage forum-shopping.
In a multi-part decision, the 8th Cir. found that torture by a Government official motivated by personal financial greed does not constitute torture under the CAT, because it's outside their official duties. It also rejected a social group claim on behalf of wealthy landownders in Bangladesh, found jurisdiction over the BIA's denial of reopening for AOS, but affirmed reopening denial on various grounds.
The 8th Cir had already held that checking off an I-9 form as a "citizen or national" was a false claim to citizenship, in the absence of any claim to be a national. The 8th cir today held that seeking private employment was a "benefit" under the Act, so as to render the applicant permanently inadmissible. The 8th Cir rejected arguments that proceedings before DAO should be excluded for lack of a translator, preferring to credit the DAO's testimony that the Petitioner understood the questions.
Where criminal conviction triggered 1252(a)(2)(C), reviewed only for errors of law and constitutional questions. Found claim of "wholesale failure to consider evidence" a Due Process claim, cognizable under 1252(a)(2)(C), but rejected on the merits. Also considered whether Board erred in interpreting acquiescence for CAT purposes, 8th Cir found no evidence of that.
The 8th Cir upheld the Board's decision in Matter of Liadov, 23 I & N Dec. 990 (BIA 2006), which held that FedEx's failure to deliver a Notice of Appeal within the 30 day filing window made that filing untimely, and in which the Board declined to exercise its sua sponte authority to correct the problem.
Eighth Circuit 
