Background
Carlos Rene Espinoza Benitez, a citizen of El Salvador, entered the United States on a visa in 2000 and overstayed it. After DHS initiated removal proceedings in 2018, he conceded removability and sought nonpermanent-resident cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1).
Espinoza contended that removal would cause exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to his two U.S.-citizen children. He primarily relied on his teenage son’s asthma, asserting that he might be unable to afford the son’s medication in El Salvador. He also cited the family’s financial circumstances, reduced employment prospects in El Salvador, and concerns about gang extortion. The IJ denied relief, finding insufficient evidence that the asthma was serious or that treatment would be unavailable or unaffordable in El Salvador; the BIA affirmed without opinion.
The Court’s Holding
The First Circuit denied the petition for review. Reviewing the IJ’s decision as the final agency action, the court held that the IJ reasonably applied the exceptional-and-extremely-unusual-hardship standard and did not depart from the relevant BIA precedents.
The court lacked jurisdiction to revisit the IJ’s underlying factual findings about the son’s asthma. It also rejected Espinoza’s legal claim that the IJ ignored material medical evidence: the IJ expressly considered the asthma, medications, hospital visits, claimed treatment costs, and distance from a hospital. The IJ permissibly concluded that the evidence did not establish hardship substantially beyond that ordinarily expected from a parent’s removal, whether considered medically or cumulatively with the family’s financial, educational, and emotional circumstances.
Key Takeaways
- Applicants for cancellation of removal bear the burden to prove hardship substantially beyond the ordinary consequences of removal.
- Courts may review the application of the hardship standard to adjudicated facts, but generally cannot reweigh the agency’s factual findings.
- Evidence of a child’s medical condition must establish both the condition’s seriousness and, where relevant, a lack of obtainable treatment abroad.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores the deferential scope of appellate review after Wilkinson v. Garland. A petitioner cannot convert disagreement with factual findings into a legal challenge merely by asserting that the agency should have assessed the medical or financial evidence differently.
For cancellation applicants, the case highlights the importance of specific corroboration concerning a qualifying relative’s condition, available treatment, treatment costs, and the family’s ability to obtain care in the country of removal.