Background
Martha Celestina Ramos Perez, a Guatemalan citizen, petitioned for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals order affirming an immigration judge’s decision denying her application for cancellation of removal. She challenged the agency’s determination that her removal would not result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to her United States citizen children.
The court’s reasoning
The court reviewed the hardship determination for substantial evidence, noting it would not overturn the agency’s decision unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary. The record showed the agency considered familial, financial, and emotional hardships. The court found the hardship claim based primarily on school-related issues with one child was not exceptional, especially given the petitioner planned to leave the children with their father. Additionally, a possible lower standard of living was not substantially beyond what is typically expected. The court distinguished Matter of Recinas and found the agency did not misapply the hardship standard.
What it means going forward
The decision reinforces the high bar for proving exceptional and extremely unusual hardship in cancellation of removal cases within the Eighth Circuit, emphasizing that school-related issues and economic impacts alone may not suffice when children remain with a parent in the United States.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download