Summary
This Fifth Circuit opinion reviews a petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals decision denying an applicant's requests for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. §§ 1229b(b)(1) and (b)(2). The court addresses its jurisdiction over mixed questions of law and fact following recent Supreme Court precedent, concluding that it may review the application of statutory hardship and extreme cruelty standards to established facts. After examining the record, the court finds that the petitioner failed to provide sufficient corroborating evidence to meet the statutory eligibility requirements for either form of relief. Consequently, the petition for review is denied.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the BIA’s denial of cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. §1229b(b)(1) was reviewable and proper given the lack of corroborating evidence.
- Whether the BIA’s denial of special cancellation of removal under the Violence Against Women Act, 8 U.S.C. §1229b(b)(2), was proper.
Holdings
- The petition is denied; the BIA’s finding that Simantov failed to provide required corroborating evidence and therefore did not meet the statutory eligibility criteria for cancellation of removal is affirmed.
- The petition is denied; the BIA’s conclusion that Simantov did not demonstrate battery or extreme cruelty and failed to provide corroborating evidence is affirmed.
Key quotations
“The IJ determined that Simantov’s testimony, though credible, was not sufficient to meet his burden of proof, and that he should have submitted reasonably available corroborating evidence in support of his application for cancellation of removal.”
“The BIA affirmed the IJ’s finding that Simantov failed to show that his removal would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to his two United States citizen daughters.”
Factual background
Baruch Simantov, a native of Uzbekistan and Israeli citizen, entered the U.S. on a visitor visa in 2009, married a U.S. citizen, and had two U.S. citizen children. After divorce in 2017, he sought cancellation of removal based on hardship and on the Violence Against Women Act, but failed to provide medical records, child‑support documentation, or evidence of battery or extreme cruelty.
Procedural history
The Immigration Judge denied Simantov’s applications for cancellation of removal and special cancellation under VAWA, citing lack of corroborating evidence. The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed that decision. Simantov timely filed a petition for review in the Fifth Circuit.