Summary
The First Circuit Court of Appeals denied a petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals order affirming an Immigration Judge's denial of cancellation of removal. The petitioner argued that her removal would cause exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to her two U.S. citizen children, but the court found the agency properly evaluated the record and concluded the anticipated hardships were not substantially beyond those normally expected from parental removal. Reviewing the IJ and BIA opinions as a unit, the court determined there was no legal error in the agency's individualized assessment.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the agency committed legal error by failing to consider significant evidence relevant to the exceptional-and-extremely-unusual-hardship inquiry.
- Whether the agency failed to make an individualized assessment of the hardship that Alay's removal would cause her two qualifying children.
- Whether the agency properly concluded that the children's anticipated economic, educational, emotional, and separation-related hardships did not satisfy 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(D).
Holdings
- The agency did not commit reversible legal error by failing to consider evidence concerning Alay's daughter, mother-in-law, length of residence, health conditions, community involvement, immigration history, or inability to adjust status because Alay did not adequately connect those circumstances to hardship suffered by her qualifying sons, and the agency in fact considered the inability to adjust status.
- The agency made an individualized assessment of the hardship that Alay's removal would cause her sons and reasonably concluded that the anticipated loss of income, economic and educational opportunities, parental companionship, emotional support, and parental presence did not amount to exceptional and extremely unusual hardship.
- The petition for review is denied.
Key quotations
“To satisfy the "exceptional and extremely unusual hardship" standard, an applicant "must demonstrate that [a] qualifying relative would suffer hardship that is 'substantially different from, or beyond, that which would normally be expected from the deportation of an alien with close family members here.'"” (145 F.4th at 6-7)
“After all, the hardship inquiry "necessarily" requires "compari[son] . . . to the hardship others might face."” (145 F.4th at 12)
Factual background
Alay, a native and citizen of Guatemala, had lived continuously in the United States since 2000 and conceded removability. She sought cancellation of removal based on the alleged exceptional and extremely unusual hardship that her removal would cause her two United States citizen sons, who lived with both parents, attended Catholic school, and were described as healthy and doing well. The agency considered the likely loss of Alay's income and parental companionship, separation from her children, and conditions in Guatemala, but concluded that the resulting hardship was not substantially beyond the hardship ordinarily expected from the removal of a parent with close family members in the United States.
Procedural history
The Department of Homeland Security initiated removal proceedings against Alay in 2013, and she conceded removability while applying for cancellation of removal. The Immigration Judge denied cancellation in December 2019, finding that she had not shown that removal would cause her two United States citizen sons exceptional and extremely unusual hardship. The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed, and Alay petitioned the First Circuit for review.