Background
Bato Petrov, a stateless native of Germany, sought cancellation of removal under Section twelve hundred twenty-nine B subsection B one, arguing that his removal would cause exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to his United States citizen relatives. An immigration judge denied his application, and the Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed. Petrov later moved to reopen the proceedings with additional evidence regarding his family’s medical conditions and the economic situation in Germany, but the Board denied the motion.
The court’s reasoning
The court reviewed the hardship determination and found that losing the family’s main income earner is insufficient alone to establish the required hardship. The court held that the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reopen because the evidence regarding the wife’s mental health and the daughter’s heart condition was available prior to the initial hearing. The court further noted that general articles about racism and economic conditions in Germany did not establish that the family’s situation would rise to the high standard of exceptional and extremely unusual hardship.
What it means going forward
The decision reinforces that financial hardship alone does not qualify for cancellation of removal and sets a high bar for motions to reopen based on evidence that was previously available.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download