Summary
The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied Bato Petrov’s petitions for review of Board of Immigration Appeals decisions denying cancellation of removal and a motion to reopen. The court held that the evidence did not establish exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to Petrov’s qualifying United States citizen relatives and that the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying reopening. The court also concluded that any failure to address evidence concerning conditions in Germany was harmless.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the Seventh Circuit had jurisdiction to review the agency's determination that Petrov had not shown exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to his qualifying relatives.
- Whether the agency erred in concluding that Petrov's family's financial dependence, medical circumstances, and other asserted hardships did not satisfy the exceptional-and-extremely-unusual-hardship requirement for cancellation of removal.
- Whether the Board of Immigration Appeals abused its discretion in denying Petrov's motion to reopen based on additional evidence.
- Whether any error by the Board in failing to address articles concerning racism and economic conditions in Germany was harmless.
Holdings
- The court had jurisdiction to review the agency's exceptional-and-extremely-unusual-hardship determination because it presented a mixed question of law and fact.
- The agency properly concluded that Petrov had not shown that removal would cause his qualifying relatives hardship substantially different from, or beyond, the hardship normally expected from the deportation of a noncitizen with close family members in the United States.
- The Board did not abuse its discretion in denying Petrov's motion to reopen because it reasonably concluded that much of the evidence was previously available and that the remaining evidence did not establish prima facie eligibility for cancellation of removal.
- Any error by the Board in failing to engage with Petrov's articles about racism and economic conditions in Germany was harmless.
Key quotations
“To be eligible for cancellation of removal under § 1229b(b)(1), Petrov “had to show that his removal would cause hardship that is substantially different from, or beyond, that which would be normally expected from the deportation of an alien with close family members in the United States.”” (at 4)
“Put simply, on the record before the Board and the immigration judge, Petrov failed to provide evidence that his family would endure harm beyond the normal pain associated with removal cases.” (at 5)
“We grant relief only if the Board’s decision “was made without a rational explanation, inexplicably departed from established policies, or rested on an impermissible basis such as invidious discrimination against a particular race or group.”” (at 5)
“Finally, to the degree that the Board committed error by failing to engage with Petrov’s articles about racism and economic conditions in Germany, any error was harmless.” (at 6)
Factual background
Petrov, a stateless native of Germany, entered the United States without admission or parole in 1974 and lived there for decades. He was married to a United States citizen, had three United States citizen children, and supported his household as its sole breadwinner. He sought cancellation of removal based on the claimed hardship his removal would cause his qualifying relatives, later submitting evidence of his wife's mental-health conditions and miscarriage, medical conditions affecting two children and his father, and adverse conditions for Roma people in Germany.
Procedural history
Petrov conceded removability after the Department of Homeland Security initiated removal proceedings based on his entry without admission or parole. An immigration judge denied his application for cancellation of removal, and the Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed. The Board later denied Petrov's motion to reopen based on additional evidence concerning his family's medical and psychological conditions and conditions in Germany. The Seventh Circuit denied both petitions for review.