Ramon Solano-Tenorio sought review of a Board of Immigration Appeals decision that upheld an immigration judge's denial of his application for cancellation of removal and his request for voluntary departure. To qualify for cancellation of removal, an applicant must demonstrate that their removal would cause exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to a qualifying relative, such as a spouse. Solano-Tenorio argued that the agency erred in finding his wife did not meet this standard and that the immigration judge exhibited bias. He also contended that the agency abused its discretion by denying voluntary departure without a proper analysis of the relevant factors.
The panel first addressed its jurisdiction, noting that while it generally lacks authority to review denials of cancellation of removal or voluntary departure, it retains jurisdiction over constitutional claims and questions of law under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D). Citing Wilkinson v. Garland, the court confirmed that the determination of exceptional and extremely unusual hardship is a mixed question of fact and law subject to judicial review. The court applied the substantial evidence standard to the hardship determination. It found that the petitioner's wife acknowledged her ability to care for and sustain herself, having held a job for 15 years and actively seeking employment after her previous position was terminated. The court concluded that the hardship was not substantially beyond what would ordinarily be expected. Regarding the due process claim, the court held that a violation requires a fundamentally unfair proceeding resulting in prejudice, which was not present here as the petitioner failed to show the hardship determination turned on a single comment about his wife's marriage. On the voluntary departure issue, the court emphasized that agencies have great latitude in exercising discretion. The agency properly weighed negative factors, including the petitioner's illegal reentry, forgery conviction, DUI, and multiple driving violations, against positive factors. The court found the agency did not abuse its discretion in concluding the negative factors outweighed the positive ones.
The decision affirms the removal order against Ramon Solano-Tenorio. The ruling clarifies that when a qualifying relative has a history of employment and the ability to sustain themselves, courts are unlikely to find exceptional and extremely unusual hardship under the substantial evidence standard. It also reinforces that agencies have broad discretion to deny voluntary departure when an applicant has a significant criminal record, including illegal reentry and forgery, even if the applicant argues the agency gave undue weight to arrests.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download