Background
The petitioner sought cancellation of removal, arguing that her removal would cause exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to her United States citizen daughter due to age, mental health risks, and financial risks stemming from her husband’s medical condition. The Immigration Judge denied the application, and the Board of Immigration Appeals adopted that decision.
The court’s reasoning
The court reviewed the Immigration Judge’s decision de novo for legal issues and for substantial evidence regarding factual findings. The court found that the petitioner failed to provide medical information regarding her daughter’s asserted health condition or persuasive evidence that her husband would cease working entirely. The court concluded that the struggles faced by the daughter were closer to ordinary emotional adjustment and a lowered standard of living rather than the exceptional hardship required by law.
What it means going forward
The decision reinforces the high bar for proving exceptional and extremely unusual hardship in cancellation of removal cases and confirms that agencies may credit portions of testimony while finding them insufficient to meet the burden of proof.