Background
Juan De Dios Olivera-Romo, a native and citizen of Mexico, applied for cancellation of removal. He argued that his removal would cause exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to his wife, who is a United States citizen.
An immigration judge denied the application, and the Board of Immigration Appeals upheld that decision. Olivera-Romo petitioned the Fifth Circuit for review, contending that the BIA failed to consider the hardship evidence cumulatively.
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth Circuit denied the petition for review. It explained that 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) bars review of the factual findings underlying the agency’s hardship determination, although the court may review the mixed question whether established facts satisfy the exceptional-and-extremely-unusual-hardship standard.
To the extent Olivera-Romo challenged the agency’s underlying factual findings, the court lacked jurisdiction to review them. As to the reviewable legal component, he did not show that the BIA erred in concluding that the difficulties his wife might experience fell short of the governing hardship standard.
The court also rejected Olivera-Romo’s argument that the BIA failed to assess the hardship evidence cumulatively, concluding that the record contradicted that contention.
Key Takeaways
- Courts lack jurisdiction to revisit the factual findings underlying an agency’s cancellation-of-removal hardship determination.
- Whether established facts satisfy the exceptional-and-extremely-unusual-hardship standard is a reviewable mixed question of law and fact.
- The record showed that the BIA considered the hardship evidence cumulatively.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the narrow scope of appellate review in cancellation-of-removal cases. A petitioner may challenge the agency’s application of the legal hardship standard to established facts, but may not use that challenge to obtain review of the agency’s factual findings.
It also shows that a claim that the BIA failed to consider hardship evidence cumulatively will not succeed when the administrative record demonstrates otherwise.