Summary
The Third Circuit reviews an Immigration Judge's denial of cancellation of removal based on whether the petitioner's deportation would cause "exceptional and extremely unusual hardship" to his U.S.-citizen son. Following a Supreme Court remand clarifying jurisdiction over mixed questions of law and fact, the court holds that the substantial evidence standard applies to such hardship determinations. Applying this deferential standard, the court affirms the IJ's decision denying relief.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- What is the proper standard of review for an Immigration Judge’s hardship determination in a cancellation‑of‑removal proceeding?
- Whether the Immigration Judge’s finding that removal would not cause exceptional and extremely unusual hardship is supported by substantial evidence.
Holdings
- The appropriate standard of review is the substantial‑evidence standard.
- Substantial evidence supports the Immigration Judge’s conclusion that Wilkinson’s removal would not cause exceptional and extremely unusual hardship; the petition is denied.
Key quotations
“We therefore hold that the substantial‑evidence standard governs review of a hardship determination in a cancellation‑of‑removal proceeding.”
“Because substantial evidence supports the conclusion that Wilkinson has not satisfied the hardship requirement to qualify for cancellation of removal, we will deny the petition for review.”
Factual background
Wilkinson, a native of Trinidad and Tobago, entered the United States in 2003 on a tourist visa and overstayed after his passport was lost during a brief incarceration. He has lived in the United States for over two decades, fathering a U.S. citizen son, M., who suffers from severe asthma and eczema. His former partner, Watson, cares for M. and would face financial and caregiving challenges if Wilkinson were removed.
Procedural history
Wilkinson sought cancellation of removal; the Immigration Judge denied relief; the BIA affirmed; the Third Circuit dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; the Supreme Court reversed and remanded; the Third Circuit now reviews under the substantial‑evidence standard.