Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca11-24-10647/USCOURTS-ca11-24-10647-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Rene Astul Lopez-Portillo
Petitioner
U.S. Attorney General
Respondent

Document Text:

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 24-10647

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

RENE ASTUL LOPEZ-PORTILLO, 

Petitioner,

versus

U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, 

Respondent.

____________________

Petition for Review of a Decision of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Agency No. A201-341-454

____________________

USCA11 Case: 24-10647 Document: 31-1 Date Filed: 12/26/2024 Page: 1 of 9
2 Opinion of the Court 24-10647

Before WILSON, ROSENBAUM, and ABUDU, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Petitioner Rene Astul Lopez-Portillo petitions for review 

from the Board of Immigration Appeals’s (BIA) order denying his 

motion to reconsider following our partial remand. He argues that 

the BIA continued to engage in impermissible fact-finding in violation of our prior mandate, and he challenges the BIA’s consideration of the hardship evidence he proffered. After careful review, 

we grant his petition and remand to the BIA to reconsider his application for cancellation of removal.

I.

In May 2019, the Department of Homeland Security served 

Lopez-Portillo, who is a native citizen of El Salvador, with a notice 

to appear, alleging that he had entered the United States without 

being admitted or paroled at an unknown date and charging him 

as removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i). He conceded removability and applied for cancellation of removal, arguing that his 

removal would cause a substantial hardship to his children, who 

are United States citizens. 

At his merits hearing, Lopez-Portillo testified and submitted 

evidence to support his application. After considering all the evidence, in an oral decision, the immigration judge (IJ) granted 

Lopez-Portillo’s application for cancellation of removal. The IJ 

stated that the son’s worsening eczema after Lopez-Portillo was detained reflected the level of hardship the children faced without 

USCA11 Case: 24-10647 Document: 31-1 Date Filed: 12/26/2024 Page: 2 of 9
24-10647 Opinion of the Court 3

their father. He also focused on the fact that the son, who spoke 

only English, did not speak the same language as their mother. He 

found that the evidence was uncontroverted that translation was 

needed to communicate with the children. The IJ found that 

Lopez-Portillo was the sole breadwinner for the family, that the 

family was at risk of losing their house, that removal could result 

in the children becoming wards or public charges, and that the family would be below the poverty level should removal occur. Thus, 

he found that the children would face exceptional and extremely 

unusual hardship if Lopez-Portillo were removed. Alternatively, 

the IJ found that, if the children were to follow Lopez-Portillo to El 

Salvador, they would be living in a country where they would not 

understand the language, where they had no ties, and where 

Lopez-Portillo’s earnings would be significantly less. The government appealed to the BIA. 

In March 2020, the BIA sustained the government’s appeal, 

vacated the IJ’s grant of cancellation of removal, and ordered 

Lopez-Portillo’s removal to El Salvador. As for the language barrier between Lopez-Portillo’s son and his wife, the BIA found that 

“any related problems upon removal [we]re a foreseeable event 

and [did] not tip the balance of the hardship equation” in 

Lopez-Portillo’s favor, and, in any event, Lopez-Portillo’s friend 

testified that he primarily spoke with Lopez-Portillo’s son in Spanish. The BIA also noted that Lopez-Portillo’s children “ha[d] no 

special health or other issues.” It stated that Lopez-Portillo’s 

spouse was “a native and citizen of El Salvador, and there [was] no 

indication that she could not resume gainful employment there in 

USCA11 Case: 24-10647 Document: 31-1 Date Filed: 12/26/2024 Page: 3 of 9
4 Opinion of the Court 24-10647

order to contribute to the support of herself and her children.” It 

stated that Lopez-Portillo’s children “are United States citizens 

who are under no legal obligation to depart the United States, and 

they will be able to visit him in El Salvador and return to the United 

States.” Lopez-Portillo did not petition this court for review of the 

March 2020 order. 

In April 2020, at the BIA, Lopez-Portillo moved to reconsider the March 2020 order. He asserted that the BIA engaged in 

impermissible factfinding when it discussed the language barrier 

that his children faced despite the IJ’s uncontroverted finding that 

a translator would be needed to communicate between mother 

and child. In August 2020, the BIA denied Lopez-Portillo’s motion 

for reconsideration. It rejected Lopez-Portillo’s argument that it 

had engaged in impermissible fact-finding. It determined that 

Lopez-Portillo had not provided a new legal argument or ground 

on which to reconsider its March 2020 order. 

Lopez-Portillo petitioned this court for review of the BIA’s 

August 2020 order denying his motion for reconsideration. We

concluded that the BIA erred by failing to consider the new legal 

argument—that the BIA had applied the incorrect standard in the 

March 2020 order by reviewing the IJ’s factual findings de novo, 

leading to impermissible fact-finding by the BIA—which was raised 

by Lopez-Portillo in his motion for reconsideration.1 Lopez-Portillo 

1 This court issued an opinion dismissing his petition in part and denying it in 

part. Lopez-Portillo filed a petition for rehearing, which the panel granted, 

vacating its previous opinion.

USCA11 Case: 24-10647 Document: 31-1 Date Filed: 12/26/2024 Page: 4 of 9
24-10647 Opinion of the Court 5

v. U.S. Att’y Gen., No. 20-13389, 2021 WL 3161811, at *4 (11th Cir. 

July 27, 2021) (per curiam). The court noted that the BIA disregarded Lopez-Portillo’s argument altogether by disagreeing with 

his characterization of the decision as engaging in fact-finding. Id. 

It concluded that the BIA’s statement, that there were no new legal 

arguments, could not allow this court to know whether the BIA 

gave this issue reasoned consideration or even considered the legal 

question at all. Id. The court granted Lopez-Portillo’s petition to 

that extent and remanded for consideration of the new legal question.2 Id.

On remand, Lopez-Portillo argued that the BIA made several impermissible findings of fact, and the BIA again denied 

Lopez-Portillo’s motion to reconsider. First, it agreed that it engaged in impermissible fact-finding by stating that Lopez-Portillo’s 

children had no special health issues. It retracted that statement 

and concluded that its impermissible finding was not determinative 

to the analysis because the IJ stated that the children’s health conditions did not largely factor into his decision. Next, the BIA retracted its statement that Lopez-Portillo’s friend testified that when 

he speaks to Lopez-Portillo’s son, it is primarily in Spanish. It concluded that, even without consideration of this statement, its analysis did not change the conclusion that Lopez-Portillo had failed to 

establish that his children will experience exceptional and 

2 The court also dismissed some of Lopez-Portillo’s other claims as jurisdictionally barred and denied his remaining claims. Lopez-Portillo, 2021 WL 

3161811, at *5.

USCA11 Case: 24-10647 Document: 31-1 Date Filed: 12/26/2024 Page: 5 of 9
6 Opinion of the Court 24-10647

extremely unusual hardship upon his removal. It emphasized that 

it relied on the IJ’s factual findings that the children lacked Spanish 

fluency, and their mother lacked English fluency. Finally, it stated 

that it considered the IJ’s factual findings about the emotional and 

financial hardship of the children, Lopez-Portillo’s and his spouse’s 

employment histories, and the potential hardships that the children 

would face. Lopez-Portillo timely petitioned for review of the 

BIA’s decision to this court.3 

II.

“We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reconsider for 

abuse of discretion.” Ferreira v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 714 F.3d 1240, 1242 

(11th Cir. 2013). “The BIA abuses its discretion when it misapplies 

the law in reaching its decision.”4 Id.

Under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1), a noncitizen’s removal can be 

cancelled if the noncitizen: (A) has been physically present in the 

3 On appeal, Lopez-Portillo moved for an emergency stay of his removal proceedings pending the outcome of his petition for review. In a 2-1 order, the 

court granted his motion, finding Lopez-Portillo met the requirements for a 

stay. The government moved for reconsideration, which was denied in another 2-1 order.

4 As the Supreme Court recently clarified, the BIA’s determination that an applicant for cancellation of removal failed to establish the requisite hardship to 

a qualifying relative is a mixed question of law and fact where the facts are 

undisputed or otherwise established. See Wilkinson v. Garland, 601 U.S. 209, 

217 (2024). This review is deferential in nature. Id. at 222. But exercising 

deferential agency review does not equate to a “rubber stamp” of an agency 

determination. Sec. Walls, LLC v. NLRB, 80 F.4th 1277, 1285 (11th Cir. 2023) 

(alteration adopted). 

USCA11 Case: 24-10647 Document: 31-1 Date Filed: 12/26/2024 Page: 6 of 9
24-10647 Opinion of the Court 7

United States for a continuous period of at least ten years immediately preceding the date of his application; (B) has been a person of 

good moral character during such period; (C) has not been convicted of an offense under 8 U.S.C. §§ 1182(a)(2), 1227(a)(2), or 

1227(a)(3); and (D) establishes that removal would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to the noncitizen’s spouse, 

parent, or child, who is a citizen of the United States or noncitizen 

lawfully admitted for permanent residence. The parties only dispute the last element under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)—that removal 

would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to the 

noncitizen’s family member. “The exceptional and extremely unusual hardship for cancellation of removal is based on a cumulative 

consideration of all hardship factors.” Matter of J-J-G-, 27 I. & N. 

Dec. 808, 810–15 (BIA 2020). 

First, the BIA specifically noted that none of the IJ’s factual 

findings were clearly erroneous. Those findings include: (1) neither child speaking the same language as their mother; (2) the 

worsening of the son’s eczema’s reflecting the emotional hardship 

suffered by the children in their father’s absence; (3) Lopez-Portillo 

functioning as the sole breadwinner; and (4) in the case of LopezPortillo’s removal, the children subsisting below poverty level 

based on the mother’s employment history and possibly becoming 

wards of the state or public charges. The IJ further prospectively 

found that the children would suffer emotionally if they were 

moved to El Salvador with their parents, where they do not speak 

the language and only two other relatives live (Lopez-Portillo’s 

mother and stepfather). 

USCA11 Case: 24-10647 Document: 31-1 Date Filed: 12/26/2024 Page: 7 of 9
8 Opinion of the Court 24-10647

As the BIA has noted, “the exceptional and extremely unusual hardship standard for cancellation of removal applicants constitutes a high threshold that is in keeping with Congress’ intent to 

substantially narrow the class of aliens who would qualify for relief. 

Matter of Gonzalez Recinas, 23 I. & N. Dec. 467, 470 (B.I.A. 2001); see 

also Matter of Andazola, I. & N. Dec. 319, 324 (B.I.A. 2002); Matter of 

Monreal, 23 I. & N. Dec. 56, 59–60 (B.I.A. 2001). But “the hardship 

standard is not so restrictive that only a handful of applicants, such 

as those who have a qualifying relative with a serious medical condition, will qualify for relief.” Matter of Gonzalez Recinas, 23 I. & N. 

Dec. at 470. We consider this case to be on the outer limit of the 

narrow range of cases in which the exceptional and extremely unusual hardship standard is met.5 

Lopez-Portillo’s case is much like that of the noncitizen the 

BIA considered in Gonzalez Recinas. In that case, the BIA affirmed 

a grant of cancellation of removal to the noncitizen from Mexico 

who was the sole provider for her four U.S. citizen children. 23 I. 

& N. Dec. at 469–470, 471. Her U.S. citizen children had spent their 

whole lives in the United States and did not speak, write, or read 

Spanish. Id. at 470. The BIA also noted that removal of the noncitizen would prevent her from continuing “to provide a safe and supportive home for her children.” Id. at 471.

In Lopez-Portillo’s case, his children depend on him to provide housing. The IJ noted that, should Lopez-Portillo be 

5 But we find that the BIA did not engage in impermissible fact-finding in violation of our prior mandate or BIA procedures. 

USCA11 Case: 24-10647 Document: 31-1 Date Filed: 12/26/2024 Page: 8 of 9
24-10647 Opinion of the Court 9

removed, the children likely would be forced to live on public assistance and face eviction from the only house they had ever 

known because of his wife’s inability to pay the mortgage. Although Lopez-Portillo is married, his wife does not work, and

Lopez-Portillo provides the only income for the family. His wife 

also does not speak the same language as the children. If the children were to stay with their mother in the United States, it would 

be forcing the children to live with a caregiver with whom they cannot communicate, below the poverty line, and during documented 

emotional turmoil. And if Lopez-Portillo and his wife were to 

move the family to El Salvador, his children would be living in a 

country where they do not speak the language and where they 

have little family, removing them from a safe and supportive environment here. We therefore find that Lopez-Portillo has made a 

showing that his U.S. citizen children would suffer “exceptional 

and extremely unusual hardship” if he were removed.

As there is no dispute that Lopez-Portillo met the other criteria for cancellation of removal, his petition is GRANTED and 

REMANDED.

USCA11 Case: 24-10647 Document: 31-1 Date Filed: 12/26/2024 Page: 9 of 9