Background
Kadiatou Babila Keita, a native of Guinea, entered the United States on a student visa in 2000 and remained after it expired. She later became the single mother of two U.S. citizen daughters. In removal proceedings, Keita sought withholding of removal and cancellation of removal, arguing that her daughters would accompany her to Guinea and face female genital mutilation.
An immigration judge granted Keita withholding of removal to Guinea but denied cancellation. Although the judge initially requested briefs only on whether withholding made Keita legally ineligible for cancellation and indicated that a later hearing would address her factual case, that hearing never occurred. The judge instead concluded that withholding had rendered her claimed hardship moot. The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed, reasoning that the requested briefing gave Keita a sufficient opportunity to present all her arguments.
The Court’s Holding
The Fourth Circuit held that Keita was not given the reasonable opportunity required by the Immigration and Nationality Act to present evidence and argument supporting cancellation of removal. The requested briefs were limited to the legal question whether withholding of removal categorically barred cancellation; they did not afford Keita an opportunity to establish the hardship her daughters could face if she were removed to a third country.
The court granted the petition in No. 24-1226, vacated the BIA’s order, and remanded for further proceedings. It left the issue of prejudice for the BIA to address on remand. Because the underlying order was vacated, the court dismissed as moot Keita’s petition in No. 24-2155 challenging the denial of reconsideration.
Key Takeaways
- Withholding of removal protects against removal to a specified country but does not prevent removal to an authorized third country.
- A briefing order confined to a threshold legal issue did not give Keita a reasonable opportunity to present evidence about hardship arising from third-country removal.
- The court did not decide whether Keita ultimately satisfies the exceptional-and-extremely-unusual-hardship standard or whether the procedural violation prejudiced her.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that immigration judges must provide a meaningful opportunity to develop the factual record before denying cancellation of removal on hardship grounds. When withholding protects a noncitizen only from removal to one country, the hardship analysis may need to account for the possibility of removal elsewhere.
The ruling also distinguishes the statutory right to a fair removal hearing from constitutional due-process protections, while leaving the BIA to determine on remand whether Keita can establish the prejudice necessary to obtain relief.