Background
Elisa Lopez-Vasquez, a native of Guatemala, entered the United States illegally in two thousand and four and resided in Missouri for twenty years. She is the mother of six United States citizen children. In two thousand and twenty-four, the Department of Homeland Security initiated removal proceedings. Lopez-Vasquez conceded removability and applied for cancellation of removal under Section twelve hundred twenty-nine B of Title eight of the United States Code and for voluntary departure. The immigration judge denied both applications, finding she was ineligible due to a prior conviction for child abuse and that her removal would not cause exceptional hardship to her children given the support of her extended family. The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed the decision. Lopez-Vasquez filed a petition for review, and the Department of Homeland Security subsequently deported her to Guatemala.
The court’s reasoning
The court first rejected the petitioner’s due process claims, citing precedent that cancellation of removal is roughly equivalent to executive clemency and that an alien has no protected liberty interest in such discretionary relief. Regarding the hardship determination, the court applied the substantial evidence standard established in Alonso-Juarez v. Bondi. The court found sufficient evidence in the record to support the Board’s conclusion that the hardship to the children was not substantially different from what would normally be expected from deportation, noting the children could remain in the United States with their father and extended family. The court also affirmed the denial of the motion to remand for new evidence, finding the petitioner failed to show the evidence was material or unavailable earlier. Finally, the court dismissed claims regarding voluntary departure as moot because the petitioner had already been deported.
What it means going forward
The decision reinforces that due process claims cannot be used to challenge the denial of discretionary cancellation of removal and clarifies that hardship determinations are reviewed for substantial evidence. It also confirms that federal courts lack jurisdiction to review voluntary departure claims once a petitioner has been deported.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download