Rodolfo Chávez Ferreira, a native and citizen of Mexico, sought cancellation of removal as a lawful permanent resident. To qualify, he needed to demonstrate that his removal would cause exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to his qualifying relatives, specifically his two parents who are also lawful permanent residents. An immigration judge denied his application, and the Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed that decision. Ferreira petitioned the Ninth Circuit for review, arguing that the BIA failed to apply the correct standard of review, did not assess hardship cumulatively, engaged in improper fact-finding, and violated his due process rights by ignoring key evidence.
The panel reviewed the agency's decision under the substantial evidence standard, which is highly deferential. Under this standard, administrative findings of fact are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary. The court reiterated that to qualify as exceptional and extremely unusual, the hardship must be out of the ordinary and exceedingly uncommon, deviating in the extreme from the norm. The BIA found that Ferreira's father is employed full-time, that his removal would not deprive his mother of access to adequate medical care, and that his parents would continue to receive support from his siblings. Based on these findings, the court concluded that while the removal would cause emotional and financial harm, it did not rise to the required level of hardship. The court rejected Ferreira's argument that the BIA failed to review the IJ's decision de novo, noting the BIA conducted its own review and reached an independent conclusion. Regarding the claim that the BIA failed to assess hardship cumulatively, the record showed the agency expressly analyzed the impact of removal on the parents in the future. The court also addressed the argument that the BIA engaged in impermissible fact-finding by noting the absence of a detailed expense accounting; the court held that observing the absence of evidence is not a factual finding. Finally, the court dismissed the due process challenge, citing the presumption that the agency reviewed all relevant evidence. The BIA had discussed the parents' medical conditions, their ability to pay bills, and the support from siblings. Ferreira failed to demonstrate that key evidence was ignored or that the outcome would have been different had the evidence been considered.
The petition is denied, and the BIA's order denying cancellation of removal remains in effect. However, the court noted that the petitioner's grant of voluntary departure automatically terminated upon the filing of the petition, meaning he is no longer subject to the ten-year bar on eligibility for cancellation of removal. A temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download