Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

willliens

Related Cases

Garcia-Ortiz v. Garland

Facts

Garcia-Ortiz, a native of Mexico, illegally entered the United States. The Department of Homeland Security commenced removal proceedings in 2015. He applied for cancellation of removal. In April 2018, his teenage daughter, Rosa, attempted suicide by ingesting ten 500 mg tablets of naproxen and was diagnosed with major depressive disorder. The Immigration Judge (IJ) disagreed, finding that Rosa never lost consciousness during the suicide attempt, made no further attempts to harm herself, indicated that therapy helped, had not scheduled any follow-up therapy, and appeared to be doing well.

In April 2018, his teenage daughter, Rosa, attempted suicide by ingesting ten 500 mg tablets of naproxen and was diagnosed with major depressive disorder. The Immigration Judge (IJ) disagreed, finding that Rosa never lost consciousness during the suicide attempt, made no further attempts to harm herself, indicated that therapy helped, had not scheduled any follow-up therapy, and appeared to be doing well.

Issue

Whether the BIA misapplied the standard for exceptional and extremely unusual hardship by focusing solely on Rosa's current conditions.

The first issue is whether, by focusing solely on Rosa's current conditions, the BIA misapplied the standard for exceptional and extremely unusual hardship.

Rule

To qualify for cancellation of removal, the alien must show: (1) continuous physical presence in the United States for at least ten years; (2) good moral character; (3) no convictions of certain crimes; and (4) that removal would result in 'exceptional and extremely unusual hardship' to a qualifying relative.

Aliens facing removal may request cancellation, a discretionary form of relief. Ali v. Barr, 924 F.3d 983, 985 (8th Cir. 2019), citing Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105, 2109, 201 L. Ed. 2d 433 (2018). To qualify, the alien must show: (1) continuous physical presence in the United States for at least ten years; (2) good moral character; (3) no convictions of certain crimes; and (4) that removal would result in 'exceptional and extremely unusual hardship' to a qualifying relative.

Analysis

The court applied the rule by examining whether the BIA's determination that Garcia-Ortiz's removal would not result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship was justified. The BIA engaged in a future-oriented analysis, acknowledging the hardships that Garcia-Ortiz's children would face but concluding that these hardships were not substantially beyond what would ordinarily be expected from the removal of a family member.

Gomez-Perez controls here. As in Gomez-Perez, Garcia-Ortiz's children will remain in the United States with their mother if he is removed to Mexico. True, the BIA adopted the IJ's findings about Rosa's current conditions, but those findings provide context for its determination about how removal would affect her in the future. The BIA began its decision by articulating Garcia-Ortiz's obligation to demonstrate that removal would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship.

Conclusion

The court denied the petition for review, affirming the BIA's decision that Garcia-Ortiz failed to demonstrate the required level of hardship.

The petition for review is denied.

Who won?

The government prevailed in the case because the court found that the BIA's decision was supported by substantial evidence and adhered to the correct legal standard.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

Kellman v. District Director

Henderson; U.S. v.

Romero v. Reno

Shivers v. United States

Ayala v. Holder