Background
Kadiatou Babila Keita, a Guinean national, remained in the United States after her student visa expired and later became the single mother of two U.S.-citizen daughters. In removal proceedings, she sought withholding and cancellation of removal, arguing that if sent to Guinea she would have to take her daughters with her and they would face female genital mutilation. The immigration judge granted withholding of removal to Guinea but continued to consider her request for cancellation, which would protect her from removal to any country and allow her to obtain lawful permanent-resident status.
At a 2016 hearing, the immigration judge ordered short briefs on the legal question whether the grant of withholding made Keita categorically ineligible for cancellation. The judge did not allow Keita to speak and indicated that she could later present her factual case if she remained eligible. Although a later hearing was scheduled, it never occurred. The judge instead denied cancellation in writing, finding no qualifying hardship because withholding had eliminated the prospect of removal to Guinea. The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed, reasoning that the ordered briefing had given Keita a sufficient opportunity to present all her arguments.
The Court’s Holding
The Fourth Circuit held that Keita did not receive the reasonable opportunity to present her cancellation claim required by 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(4)(B). The ordered briefs were limited to the threshold legal question whether withholding relief categorically barred cancellation; they did not provide a meaningful opportunity to submit evidence and argument about the hardship her daughters could face if Keita were removed to a third country. Nor was Keita allowed to testify at the 2016 hearing, despite the judge’s indication that she could present her factual case later.
The court granted the petition in No. 24-1226, vacated the BIA’s order dismissing Keita’s appeal, and remanded for further proceedings. It did not decide whether Keita could prove exceptional and extremely unusual hardship or whether the procedural violation prejudiced her, leaving prejudice for the BIA to address on remand. Because the underlying order was vacated, the court dismissed as moot the petition in No. 24-2155 challenging the denial of reconsideration.
Key Takeaways
- Withholding of removal to one country does not protect a noncitizen from removal to every other country, while cancellation of removal does.
- Briefing confined to a threshold legal issue did not give Keita a reasonable opportunity to present evidence about hardship arising from possible third-country removal.
- The court vacated on procedural grounds without deciding Keita’s ultimate eligibility for cancellation or whether she suffered the prejudice required for relief.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces that immigration judges must give cancellation applicants a meaningful opportunity to develop the factual record, particularly when the court’s ruling turns on a hardship theory different from the one the parties were told to brief. A promised evidentiary hearing cannot be replaced by limited legal briefing and then treated as though it allowed presentation of the applicant’s entire case.
The ruling also highlights the practical distinction between country-specific withholding and cancellation of removal: even after withholding is granted, potential removal to a third country may create separate hardships relevant to cancellation. Judge Quattlebaum dissented, concluding that the statutory argument was not preserved, the majority relied on a ground the BIA had not decided, and the process Keita received was sufficient.