Background
Bato Petrov, a stateless native of Germany who entered the United States illegally in 1974, sought cancellation of removal under Section twelve hundred twenty-nine B subsection B one. He argued that his removal would cause exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to his United States citizen wife, children, and father. An immigration judge denied the application, and the Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed. Petrov later filed a motion to reopen with additional medical evidence regarding his wife and children, which the Board also denied.
The court’s reasoning
The court reviewed the hardship determination as a mixed question of law and fact. It held that the agency’s conclusion was supported because the record showed the family’s hardship was not beyond what is normally expected from deportation. The court noted that losing the family’s main income earner is insufficient alone to establish the required hardship. Regarding the motion to reopen, the court found the Board did not abuse its discretion because the medical evidence was available prior to the initial hearing. The court also deemed any error in failing to engage with articles about racism in Germany as harmless.
What it means going forward
The decision reinforces the high evidentiary bar for proving exceptional and extremely unusual hardship in cancellation of removal cases and limits the ability to reopen proceedings based on evidence that was previously available.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download