Summary
This First Circuit Court of Appeals opinion reviews the Board of Immigration Appeals' affirmation of an immigration judge's denial of cancellation of removal. The court addresses the petitioners' challenges to the agency's finding that they failed to demonstrate "exceptional and extremely unusual hardship" to their U.S. citizen children upon removal. The court dismisses portions of the petition challenging factual findings, which are beyond its jurisdiction, and denies the remaining claims after concluding the agency's application of the hardship standard was not an abuse of discretion.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the BIA's finding that the petitioners failed to demonstrate "exceptional and extremely unusual hardship" to their United States citizen children is supported by substantial evidence.
- Whether the appellate court has jurisdiction to review the BIA's factual findings.
- What level of hardship satisfies the statutory "exceptional and extremely unusual hardship" standard.
Holdings
- The court lacks jurisdiction to review the BIA's factual findings and finds that the agency's hardship determination is supported by substantial evidence; therefore the petition is dismissed in part and denied in part.
Key quotations
“"A hardship may qualify as \"exceptional and extremely unusual\" only if it is \"substantially different from, or beyond, that which would normally be expected from the deportation of an alien with close family members here.\"” (at 5)
Factual background
Jacinto Xiquin Xirum and Bartola Romero Santos are Guatemalan nationals who have lived in the United States for 26 years and have two United States citizen children. They are healthy, gainfully employed, and own a home in Mexico. The children are fluent in Spanish, have no learning disabilities, and have lived their entire lives in the United States.
Procedural history
Petitioners applied for cancellation of removal; the Immigration Judge denied the applications; the Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed; petitioners filed a petition for review in the First Circuit.