Featured Chrome Extensions:

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

motion

Related Cases

Anees v. Napolitano
View Case »
Baires v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
View Case »
Tate v. Pompeo
View Case »
Luna-Garcia v. Holder
View Case »
Zheng Liu v. Chertoff
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Gomez-Perez v. Holder

Facts

Gomez-Perez is a native and citizen of Guatemala who entered the United States without inspection in 1990. He was charged with removability in 2005 and subsequently filed an application for cancellation of removal in 2006, claiming that his removal would cause exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to his three U.S. citizen children. The IJ denied his application, concluding that the evidence did not demonstrate the required level of hardship.

Gomez-Perez is a native and citizen of Guatemala who entered the United States without inspection in 1990. He was charged with removability in 2005 and subsequently filed an application for cancellation of removal in 2006, claiming that his removal would cause exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to his three U.S. citizen children.

Issue

Whether the IJ and the BIA applied an incorrect legal standard in determining that Gomez-Perez had not established that removal would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to his children.

Whether the IJ and the BIA applied an incorrect legal standard in determining that Gomez-Perez had not established that removal would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to his children.

Rule

Under 8 U.S.C. 1229b(b)(1)(D), an applicant for cancellation of removal must demonstrate that removal would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to a qualifying relative.

Under 8 U.S.C. 1229b(b)(1)(D), an applicant for cancellation of removal must demonstrate that removal would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to a qualifying relative.

Analysis

The court analyzed whether the IJ and BIA properly applied the legal standard for hardship. It found that the IJ articulated the requirement that removal must result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship and acknowledged the economic hardship the children would face. However, the IJ concluded that there was insufficient evidence to show that the emotional and psychological impact of Gomez-Perez's departure would create the required level of hardship, a conclusion that the BIA adopted.

The court analyzed whether the IJ and BIA properly applied the legal standard for hardship. It found that the IJ articulated the requirement that removal must result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship and acknowledged the economic hardship the children would face.

Conclusion

The court denied Gomez-Perez's petition for review, affirming the IJ's and BIA's decisions.

The court denied Gomez-Perez's petition for review, affirming the IJ's and BIA's decisions.

Who won?

The government prevailed in the case because the court found that the IJ and BIA applied the correct legal standard and that the evidence did not support Gomez-Perez's claim of exceptional hardship.

The government prevailed in the case because the court found that the IJ and BIA applied the correct legal standard and that the evidence did not support Gomez-Perez's claim of exceptional hardship.

You must be