Andres Perez-Padilla, a native and citizen of Mexico, sought cancellation of removal before an Immigration Judge, arguing that his removal would cause exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to his United States citizen children. The Immigration Judge denied the application, and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) upheld that denial. Perez-Padilla petitioned the Fifth Circuit for review, claiming the agency failed to afford adequate weight to the hardship factors and violated his due process rights by not considering the evidence cumulatively. The case turned on whether the court could review the BIA's factual determinations regarding hardship and whether the petitioner had a constitutional right to a cumulative consideration of evidence in the context of discretionary relief.
The court analyzed the petition under the jurisdictional limits set by 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) and the Supreme Court's decision in Wilkinson v. Garland. The court held that it lacks jurisdiction to review the factual findings underlying the agency's conclusion on the issue of hardship. While the court noted that whether an established set of facts satisfies the legal standard of exceptional and extremely unusual hardship is a mixed question of fact and law that is reviewable under § 1252(a)(2)(D), Perez-Padilla's arguments largely disputed the correctness of the agency's factual findings, such as the financial and emotional impact on his family. These factual findings are unreviewable. To the extent the petitioner argued that the established facts satisfied the hardship standard, the court found the argument unavailing under Fifth Circuit precedent. Additionally, the record showed that the agency did consider the evidence cumulatively. The court further clarified that even if the argument were framed as a constitutional claim, it would still be barred because aliens do not have due process rights with respect to discretionary relief such as cancellation of removal.
The BIA's order upholding the denial of cancellation of removal remains in full force and effect. The decision reinforces the Fifth Circuit's strict adherence to jurisdictional bars regarding factual findings in immigration hardship cases and clarifies that due process protections do not extend to the discretionary phase of removal proceedings. Petitioners challenging similar denials must focus on legal errors rather than factual disputes to survive jurisdictional scrutiny.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download