Marcelino Navarro Gomez, a native and citizen of Mexico, sought cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1). An immigration judge denied his application, and the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissed his appeal. Navarro-Gomez petitioned the Ninth Circuit for review, arguing that his removal would cause exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to his daughters. The core dispute centers on whether the record supports the BIA's determination that the hardship his family would face does not meet the demanding statutory standard required for cancellation of removal.
The panel, in a unanimous decision, denied the petition for review. The court explained that its jurisdiction is limited to the application of the exceptional and extremely unusual hardship standard to an established set of facts, citing Wilkinson v. Garland. The court emphasized that the facts underlying any determination on cancellation of removal are unreviewable. The BIA had considered the financial, educational, medical, and emotional hardship the daughters would face but determined that, when viewed cumulatively, this hardship did not rise to the demanding standard. The court noted that while the daughters might struggle by losing Navarro-Gomez as a source of support, this does not deviate in the extreme from the hardship that results in the usual, ordinary course when a family member is removed. The court further rejected Navarro-Gomez's challenge regarding the IJ's assumption that the daughters could achieve educational goals through future scholarships, noting that the BIA did not expressly adopt that finding. Additionally, the court stated it could not review the IJ's factual assumption that Navarro-Gomez would be able to find employment in Mexico and continue to financially support his children, as such factual findings are unreviewable.
The petitioner's request for cancellation of removal is denied, and the BIA's order dismissing the appeal remains in effect. Navarro-Gomez remains subject to removal. The decision reinforces the strict limitation on judicial review of factual findings in immigration hardship cases, requiring petitioners to point to evidence that compels a contrary conclusion to the BIA's determination.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download