Background
The petitioner, a native of Guatemala, entered the United States without inspection over twenty years ago. He applied for cancellation of removal based on the hardship his removal would cause his two minor U.S. citizen daughters. The Immigration Judge denied the application, and the Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed, finding the petitioner did not demonstrate exceptional and extremely unusual hardship.
The court’s reasoning
The court held that under Wilkinson v. Garland, it could not review the agency’s factual findings but only the application of the legal standard. The court found the agency’s decision was supported by substantial evidence and not clearly erroneous. The agency properly considered the daughters’ medical conditions, the availability of care in Guatemala, and the family’s financial resources. The court noted that reduced income is an ordinary consequence of removal and not exceptional.
What it means going forward
The denial of the petition leaves the removal order in place, requiring the petitioner to return to Guatemala.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download