Summary
The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied Jose Baltazar Us’s petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ denial of cancellation of removal. The court held that hardship determinations under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(D) are reviewed under the IIRIRA substantial-evidence standard and concluded that no reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to find exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to Us’s children.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- What standard of review applies to the Board of Immigration Appeals' application of the exceptional-and-extremely-unusual-hardship standard to the facts of a cancellation-of-removal case?
- Whether substantial evidence compelled the conclusion that Baltazar Us's removal would cause his U.S.-citizen children exceptional and extremely unusual hardship under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(D).
- Whether the court could review the IJ's factual findings or remand for consideration of changed country conditions and changed circumstances outside the administrative record.
Holdings
- A cancellation-of-removal hardship determination involving the application of 8 U.S.C. § 240A(b)(1)'s standard to established facts is reviewed under the IIRIRA substantial-evidence standard.
- No reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude that Baltazar Us's removal would cause his two U.S.-citizen children exceptional and extremely unusual hardship.
- The court lacked jurisdiction to disturb the IJ's factual determinations.
- The court could not remand for consideration of changed country conditions or changed circumstances that were not part of the administrative record.
Key quotations
“Thus, we hold that cancellation-of-removal hardship determinations are to be reviewed under the IIRIRA substantial-evidence standard.” (4)
“Accordingly, the Board’s determination that a given set of undisputed facts does not rise to the level of exceptional and extremely unusual hardship is “conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.”” (4)
“The exceptional and extremely unusual hardship standard sets a high bar—the resulting harm “sustained” by a deported noncitizen’s qualifying relatives must be “significantly different from or greater than the hardship that a deported alien’s family normally experiences.”” (5)
Factual background
Jose Baltazar Us, a Guatemalan citizen, entered the United States unlawfully in 2000 and lived there with his Guatemalan-citizen wife and two U.S.-citizen children. He was the family's sole provider and sought cancellation of removal, asserting that his children would suffer financial, educational, medical, safety, and quality-of-life hardships if the family relocated to Guatemala. The IJ found that the family could transition to Guatemala, obtain employment, use home equity and a vehicle to meet financial needs, and address any medical needs, and that the children had no serious medical or learning conditions.
Procedural history
Baltazar Us conceded that he was removable as a noncitizen present in the United States without admission or parole and applied for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1). The Immigration Judge denied relief, finding that removal would not cause his U.S.-citizen children exceptional and extremely unusual hardship. The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed, and Baltazar Us timely petitioned the Sixth Circuit for review.