Oscar Sampayo Vargas, a native and citizen of Mexico, sought cancellation of removal in the United States. His application relied on the serious medical condition of his sons, specifically asthma, and the claim that adequate medical care was unavailable in Mexico. An immigration judge denied the application, and the Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed that decision. Vargas petitioned the Ninth Circuit for review, arguing that the agency ignored a 2011 letter from his sons' doctor and failed to give full weight to treatment notes stating that care was only available in the United States.
The court analyzed the petition under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2), which limits judicial review of immigration decisions. The court distinguished between questions of law, which are reviewed de novo, and factual findings, which are generally unreviewable. Regarding the 2011 doctor's letter, the court applied the presumption that the agency considers all relevant evidence. Vargas could only overcome this presumption by showing the evidence was highly probative or potentially dispositive. The court found the letter was not dispositive because it did not address whether adequate medical care was unavailable in Mexico. Consequently, the court presumed the BIA considered the letter. Regarding the claim that the agency assigned too little weight to treatment notes, the court cited Wilkinson v. Garland, holding that it lacks jurisdiction to review how an agency weighs evidence in making factual findings underlying a decision to deny discretionary relief. The court noted that to be eligible for cancellation of removal based on a qualifying relative's health, a petitioner must show that adequate medical care is not reasonably available in the country of removal. The BIA found Vargas did not establish this, and the court found no reversible error in that determination.
The petition is denied in part and dismissed in part. The BIA's denial of cancellation of removal remains effective, and the immigration judge's order stands. The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues. The decision reinforces the jurisdictional bar on reviewing the weight assigned to evidence in immigration hardship determinations.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download