Background
Gerardo Guzman-Gutierrez sought review of a Board of Immigration Appeals order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for cancelation of removal under Section eight thousand two hundred twenty-nine B of Title eight of the United States Code.
The court’s reasoning
The court reviewed the case de novo for legal questions and for substantial evidence regarding the hardship standard. The petitioner argued the immigration judge violated due process by not allowing his ten-year-old son to testify. The court held that while noncitizens have a right to a full and fair proceeding, they must show the violation caused prejudice. The immigration judge allowed the petitioner and his parents to testify about the same subjects the son would have covered, including his health and relationship with his father. The court found no reasonable possibility that the son’s testimony would have changed the outcome given the tenuous nature of the claim. Regarding the hardship standard, the court noted that the hardship must be out of the ordinary and deviate in the extreme from the norm. The evidence showed the son did not have very serious health issues and the parents were not solely dependent on the petitioner for support. The court also addressed a claim that the Board engaged in impermissible factfinding regarding family sponsorship, concluding any such error was harmless because it did not change the result.
What it means going forward
The denial of the petition affirms the removal order, leaving the petitioner subject to deportation without the relief of cancelation of removal.