Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca3-23-02164/USCOURTS-ca3-23-02164-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Attorney General United States of America
Respondent
Carlos Calderon-Escobar
Petitioner

Document Text:

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

_______________

No. 23-2164

_______________

CARLOS CALDERON-ESCOBAR,

Petitioner

v.

ATTORNEY GENERAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

_______________

On Petition for Review of an

Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

(Agency No. A209-308-021)

Immigration Judge: Kuyomars Q. Golparvar

_______________

Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)

September 12, 2024

Before: CHAGARES, Chief Judge, ROTH, and RENDELL, Circuit Judges.

(Filed: January 10, 2025)

_______________

OPINION1

_______________

RENDELL, Circuit Judge.

1 This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and, pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7, does not 

constitute binding precedent.

Case: 23-2164 Document: 39 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/10/2025
2

Carlos Calderon-Escobar petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals 

(BIA) order dismissing his appeal of the denial of his application for cancellation of 

removal and denying his motion to remand for consideration of new evidence. We will 

grant his petition, reverse the BIA’s order to the extent that it denied the motion to 

remand, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

I.

Calderon-Escobar is a native and citizen of Mexico. He entered the United States 

without authorization or inspection in March 2001. He and his wife, Caren, a native and 

citizen of Guatemala, have two school-age children. The family lives in Pennsylvania 

where they own a home and a car. Calderon-Escobar established, owns, and operates a 

successful tree removal business, which employs five people. He has filed state and 

federal income tax returns and has paid additional taxes as required. He has maintained

his continuous physical presence in the United States for over 20 years. 

In 2016, the Department of Homeland Security charged Calderon-Escobar as 

subject to removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i). He conceded his removability but

applied for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(D), claiming that his 

removal would result in “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” to his two U.S. 

citizen children. 8 U.S.C. § 1129b(b)(1)(D). In 2021, after a hearing, an immigration 

judge (IJ) denied the application for cancellation of removal and ordered him removed. 

The IJ concluded that although Calderon-Escobar was physically present for a 

continuous period of more than twenty years, that he was of good moral character, and 

had not been convicted of any disqualifying offenses, he failed to establish that his two 

Case: 23-2164 Document: 39 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/10/2025
3

U.S. citizen children would suffer exceptional and extremely unusual hardship because of

his removal.2 The IJ reasoned that Calderon-Escobar’s success in establishing a tree 

removal company and the assets he accumulated in doing so would provide his children 

with a comfortable life, and that the children’s ages, health, and ability to speak Spanish 

would allow them to acclimate to life in Mexico with some ease.

Calderon-Escobar appealed. While his appeal was pending, however, his wife and 

two-year old son were robbed at gunpoint outside a grocery store. As a result of this 

assault, his wife and son were transported to the hospital. Shortly after this incident, 

Calderon-Escobar’s son experienced marked behavioral changes including “twitching or 

nervous movement[s],” “shakes,” “nightmares,” and trouble eating and sleeping. A42-

43. Calderon-Escobar and his wife took their son to see a family physician who 

preliminarily diagnosed him with an “anxiety/behavioral change,” and prescribed some 

medication. AR61. After another doctor’s visit, he was further diagnosed with 

“Anxiety/Panic Episodes.” AR54. The doctor noted that Calderon-Escobar’s son was 

exhibiting symptoms of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and referred him to the 

Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia’s (CHOP) “Psychiatry and Behavioral Clinic” for 

evaluation and treatment. A52. 

2 To be eligible for cancellation of removal under the Immigration and Naturalization 

Act, the applicant must: (1) have been physically present in the United States for a 

continuous period of at least ten years, (2) be of good moral character during that time, 

(3) have not been convicted of certain criminal offenses, and (4) demonstrate that 

removal would result in “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to [a qualifying 

relative].” 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1). 

Case: 23-2164 Document: 39 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/10/2025
4

Based on his two-year old son’s changed circumstances and diagnoses of anxiety, 

behavioral change, and panic episodes, as well as likely, though not yet diagnosed,

PTSD, Calderon-Escobar a filed a motion to remand for consideration of new evidence. 

In his motion, he urged that his son had been diagnosed with a serious medical condition 

and that adequate medical care was unavailable in Mexico. To support that his son was 

suffering from a serious medical condition, he submitted his son’s doctor’s notes and 

prescription, affidavits providing testimony about the effect that the robbery and assault 

had on his son, and the police report of the incident. He further cited to various medical 

journal articles relating to the behavioral and emotional effects of violence on minors. To 

support that medical care would not be adequate in Mexico to treat his son’s condition, he 

submitted a 2010 article titled “Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services in Mexico” 

which detailed the lack of mental health treatments for children in Mexico. A69-71. 

Despite this new evidence of changed circumstances, the BIA denied the motion 

to remand and dismissed the appeal in a two-page order. As to the motion to remand, the 

BIA concluded that he had not established prima facie eligibility for the requested relief, 

stating that he “has not provided evidence that a serious medical condition has been 

diagnosed or that treatment would be unavailable in Mexico.” AR4. In reaching this 

conclusion, the BIA did not discuss any of the doctor’s notes, affidavits, the police report, 

or reference any of Calderon-Escobar’s citations to medical journal articles relating to the 

psychological effects of violence on young children. The BIA also did not explain why 

the scholarly report he submitted to show that Mexico’s mental health services were not 

Case: 23-2164 Document: 39 Page: 4 Date Filed: 01/10/2025
5

equipped to handle his son’s serious medical condition was insufficient to establish prima 

facie entitlement to relief. 

Regarding Calderon-Escobar’s appeal on the merits, the BIA recounted the 

findings of the IJ, and agreed that he did not present sufficient evidence that the 

“conditions in Mexico would cause exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to his 

children” and that he would be able to create a good life for his family in Mexico. AR4.

Calderon-Escobar petitioned for review.

II.

3

Before this Court, Calderon-Escobar urges that (1) the BIA abused its discretion 

when it denied his motion to remand without providing a rational explanation for 

rejecting the evidence he presented concerning his son’s serious medical condition and 

the inadequacy of Mexico’s mental health system to treat the serious medical condition; 

and (2) the BIA and IJ failed to consider arguments and evidence regarding the “double 

level of separation” that the qualifying relatives would experience.4

 We agree that the 

BIA abused its discretion. 

3 We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D). Wilkinson v. Garland, 601 U.S. 

209, 212 (2024) (holding that a question over the “exceptional and extremely unusual 

hardship” determination is a “quintessential mixed question of law and fact.”). 

The Court reviews a BIA decision to deny a motion to remand for abuse of discretion. 

Darby v. Attorney Gen., 1 F.4th 151, 159 (3d Cir. 2021).

4 As we conclude that the BIA erred denying Calderon-Escobar’s motion to remand, we 

need not reach this argument regarding “double level of separation.” 

Case: 23-2164 Document: 39 Page: 5 Date Filed: 01/10/2025
6 

To succeed on a motion to remand, the movant must establish “prima facie 

eligibility” for relief. Guo v. Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 556, 563 (3d Cir. 2004). “To make a 

prima facie case, the applicant must ‘produce objective evidence showing a “reasonable 

likelihood” that he can establish [that he is entitled to relief].’” Darby v. Att’y Gen., 1 

F.4th 151, 160–61 (3d Cir. 2021) (citation omitted) (alteration in original). “Reasonable 

likelihood” simply means “a realistic chance.” Guo, 386 F.3d at 566. An applicant does 

not need to “establish” the existence of “extraordinary and extreme unusual hardship” but 

only that there is “a realistic chance that such a finding could be made on remand.” Id. at 

565 (emphasis added). 

 “Discretionary decisions of the BIA will not be disturbed unless they are found to 

be ‘arbitrary, irrational or contrary to law.’” Tipu v. I.N.S., 20 F.3d 580, 582 (3d Cir. 

1994). Serious mischaracterization of evidence or the failure to consider key evidence 

may constitute an error of law. See, e.g., Paucar v. Garland, 84 F.4th 71, 84 (2d Cir. 

2023) (holding that BIA overlooking material evidence of mental illness put forth in a 

motion to remand was an error of law). While the BIA is not required to consider every 

piece of evidence with the utmost scrutiny, when such evidence is central to “the subtle 

determination” of the “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” test, such as here, 

failure to consider that evidence is an error of law and an abuse of discretion. Mendez v. 

Holder, 566 F.3d 316, 323 (2d Cir. 2009). 

Here, we conclude that the BIA abused its discretion by summarily concluding 

that Calderon-Escobar had not established “prima facie eligibility for the relief he seeks” 

because he did not provide evidence “that a serious medical condition ha[d] been 

Case: 23-2164 Document: 39 Page: 6 Date Filed: 01/10/2025
7 

diagnosed or that treatment would be unavailable in Mexico.” AR4. The BIA’s 

conclusion that Calderon-Escobar’s son had not been diagnosed with a serious medical 

condition was plainly contrary to the record evidence. Indeed, two doctor’s notes 

memorialized that a physician had affirmatively diagnosed his son with “anxiety,” 

“behavioral change,” and “panic episodes.” A52-54. And this doctor further noted that 

the son exhibited symptoms of PTSD and required specialized psychiatric evaluation and 

treatment at CHOP. While the BIA alluded to the evidence in a perfunctory footnote, it 

did not expressly address the affidavits, the police report, nor Calderon-Escobar’s 

citations to various medical literature in his brief. See A2 n.2 (discounting all evidence 

under “Tab A” as insufficient “to establish a serious medical condition,” without 

explanation). The BIA, thus, clearly erred in finding that he had not submitted evidence 

to show that his son had been diagnosed by a physician and recommended for further 

evaluation and treatment at one of the nation’s top pediatric hospitals. 

Similarly, the BIA’s conclusion that Calderon-Escobar had “not provided evidence 

. . . that treatment would be unavailable in Mexico” for his son’s anxiety, behavioral 

change, panic episodes, and likely PTSD, was contrary to the evidence. A2. In moving 

for remand, Calderon-Escobar submitted a 2010 article detailing the dearth and 

inadequacy of mental health care for children in Mexico. But the BIA overlooked this 

somewhat dated medical article in concluding that no evidence demonstrated that 

“treatment would be unavailable in Mexico.” A2. To succeed on his motion to remand 

based on new evidence, Calderon-Escobar was required only to show his prima facie 

eligibility for relief, not his actual eligibility. That is, he was required to submit just 

Case: 23-2164 Document: 39 Page: 7 Date Filed: 01/10/2025
8

enough evidence to show that he would have a “realistic chance” of establishing his 

entitlement to relief on remand. The evidence before the BIA regarding the pediatric 

mental health system in Mexico showed that the system is inadequate to treat CalderonEscobar’s condition. It was required to consider, but did not, whether that evidence was 

relevant and reliable despite its age. See, e.g., Matter of J-J-G-, 27 I&N Dec. 808, 812

n.6. (BIA 2020) (noting that evidence must evaluated for “relevance and reliability”). It 

was, therefore, clearly erroneous for the BIA to find, in the face of documentary evidence 

to the contrary, that treatment would be available for Calderon-Escobar’s son’s ailments

in Mexico. 

IV.

For these reasons, we will grant the petition for review, reverse the BIA’s order to 

the extent that it denied the motion to remand, and remand the case to permit the IJ to 

reconsider Calderon-Escobar’s application for cancellation of removal in light of all the 

evidence.

Case: 23-2164 Document: 39 Page: 8 Date Filed: 01/10/2025