Jose Baltazar Us, a native of Guatemala who entered the United States unlawfully in 2000, sought cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1). To qualify, Us had to demonstrate that his removal would cause exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to his U.S.-citizen children. An Immigration Judge denied the application, finding that Us's family could find employment in Guatemala, that the children had no serious medical or learning issues, and that Us possessed assets to assist the family's transition. The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed the denial. Us petitioned the Sixth Circuit for review, arguing that the hardships he and his family would face were exceptional and that the lower courts failed to consider the cumulative effect of these hardships.
The Sixth Circuit first resolved a circuit split regarding the standard of review for mixed questions of law and fact in cancellation of removal cases. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Urias-Orellana v. Bondi, the court held that such determinations must be reviewed under the IIRIRA substantial-evidence standard. Under this standard, the Board's determination is conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary. The court then applied this deferential standard to Us's claim. The opinion explained that the 'exceptional and extremely unusual hardship' standard requires harm significantly different from or greater than the hardship a family normally experiences upon deportation. The court found that Us's arguments regarding economic strain, reduced educational opportunities, and adverse country conditions in Guatemala described hardships that are typical of deportation cases. The Immigration Judge reasonably found that Us and his wife could work in Guatemala, that the children could return to the U.S. for medical care if needed, and that Us had assets to support the family. The court rejected Us's argument that the lack of public assistance evidence negated the hardship finding, noting that applicants must show their specific hardships are extraordinary, not just worse than cases where relief was denied. Finally, the court noted it lacked jurisdiction to review the IJ's factual findings or to consider new evidence regarding changed country conditions.
The removal order against Jose Baltazar Us remains in full force. The decision clarifies that the Sixth Circuit will apply the IIRIRA substantial-evidence standard to hardship determinations in cancellation of removal cases, a standard that is highly deferential to the agency. It reinforces that typical hardships associated with deportation, such as economic strain or reduced educational opportunities, are insufficient to meet the statutory threshold. Petitioners cannot introduce new evidence of changed country conditions on appeal, as judicial review is confined to the administrative record.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download