Background
Luis Miguel Nava-Hernandez, a Mexican national who entered the United States illegally, 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 mother, a lawful permanent resident, due to her heart condition and financial dependence on him. The immigration judge and the Board of Immigration Appeals denied the application, finding that his relatives could care for his mother and that he provided no documentation to support his claims of financial contribution or medical necessity.
The court’s reasoning
The court applied the substantial evidence standard to review the agency’s conclusion that the petitioner did not meet the statutory hardship requirement. The court noted that the statutory standard requires hardship significantly different from or greater than what a deported alien’s relative would ordinarily experience. The court found that the agency reasonably determined the petitioner’s mother would continue to receive medical care and family support without him. Additionally, the court observed that the petitioner provided no evidence linking his deportation to a worsening of his mother’s condition or proving he could not send money from Mexico.
So the extraordinary relief of canceling removal requires that a family member’s hardship far exceed those common adversities.
Moctezuma-Reyes v. Garland, 124 F.4th 416, 422 (6th Cir. 2024)
What it means going forward
The decision reinforces the high evidentiary burden required to prove exceptional and extremely unusual hardship in cancellation of removal cases, particularly when documentary evidence is lacking.