P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

N o. 08- 4598

BL ANC A B AR RA L E S P AR E J A, Pet i t i oner

v. A TTO RN EY G EN ER A L O F TH E U N I TED STA TES,

R es pondent

O n Pet i t i on forR evi ew fr om an O rd e r o f th e B o a rd o f

Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls ( B oar d N o. A 098- 632- 579) Im m i grat i on Judg e: H on orabl e E ug ene P ug l i ese

A r gued J une 23, 2010 Be f o r e : S M I T H, F I S HE R a n d GR E E NB E RG ,

C i r cui tJudges

. ( Fi l ed: J ul y29, 2010)2 D avi d A

. I s aac s on ( A r gued) 2 W al l St r eet , 6t h Fl oor N ew Y or k, N Y 10005 C ouns el f orP et i t i oner L i nda Y

. C heng ( A r gued) W

. D ani el Shi eh U ni t ed St at es D epart m entof J us t i ce O ffi ce of I m m i gr at i on L i t i gat i on, C i vi l D i vi s i on P. O

. B ox 878 B en Fr ankl i n St at i on W as hi ngt on, D C 20044 C ouns el f orR es pondent

OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

F IS H E R , C i r cui tJudge

. B l anca B arr al es Parej a, a M exi can c i t i zen a nd nat i ve, pet i t i ons forr evi ew of a fi nal or der of re m oval of t he B oar d of Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls (“ B IA ” ). W e w ill g ra n t th e p e tit io n in part , den yi ti n p art , and dis m i ss i ti n part and rem and t his case t o the B IA w i t h instruct i on s. I.T he tr ans cr i ptof the pr ocee di ng befor e t he I J s pel l s t he 1 fami l y ’ s name as “Shi hi , ” butPar ej a t el l s us i n herbr i ef thatthe nam e i s actuall yspel l ed “S heeh y , ” and t he recor d el sew here so r efl ect s . W e adoptt he l at t ers pel l i ng. T i t l e 8 U

. S. C

. § 1182( a) ( 6) ( A ) ( i ) s t at es that“[a ] n al i en 2 pr es enti n t he U ni t ed St at es w i thoutbei ng admi t t ed orpar ol ed, orw ho arr i ves i n the U ni t ed St at es atanyt i m e orpl ace ot her th a n a s d e s ig n a te d b yth e A tto rn e yG e n e ra l, is in a d m is s ib le .” 3 In M a rc h 1 9 9 1 , w h e n sh e w a s th irtee n y e a rs o ld , P a re ja ent er ed the U ni t ed St at es w i t hout i ns pect i on t o r euni t e w i t h her par ent s , w ho had pr evi ous l ycome to t he U ni t ed St at es fr om M ex ico. In D ec em b er 2 0 0 1 , P are ja ga v e b irth to a d au g h ter, J oanne, w i t h C es ar G ar ci a. J oanne i s a U ni t ed St at es ci t i zen a nd h as n ev e r b e e n to M ex ico. In 2 0 0 5 , P are ja an d G arc ia’s r el at i ons hi p ended. G ar ci a, w ho i s not a U ni t ed S t at es ci t i zen, pr ovi des chi l d s uppor tforJ oanne a nd see s heraboutt w i ce a m ont h. Fort he l as ts ever al y ear s , Par ej a has w orke d fort he S h ee h yfa m il yin C o lt s N ec k , N ew Jerse y , p erf o rm ing ch il d ca re a n d h o u s e w o r k

. P a re

ja a n d Jo a n n e liv e w ith th e S h e e h y s in 1 th e ir h o m e . Jo a n n e a tten d s a lo c a l p u b lic s c h o o l. Pa reja rec ei ved a N ot i ce t o A ppeari n A pr i l 2006, c h a r g i n g t h a t s h e wa s r e mo v a b l e u n d e r 8 U. S

. C. § 1182( a) ( 6) ( A ) ( i )

. Par ej a conc eded r emovabi l i t y butappl i ed 2 fo r ca n ce ll ati o n o f re m o v al un d er 8 U .S

. C

. § 1 2 2 9 b (b)(1 ). In Sept ember2007, an Imm i gr at i on J udge (“ I J ”) hel d a hea r i ng at w hi ch Par ej a spoke about her backgr ound and l i fe i n t he U ni t ed St at e s a n d t o l d t h e I J t h a t J o a n n e wou l d a c c o mpa n y h e ri f s he4 w e re o rd ere d to return to M ex ico. T h e IJ a lso h ea rd f rom D r. Jam es K il roy , a c li n ical psy ch o log istw h o test if ie d o n P are

ja’s beh al f t hat Joan ne i s em oti on al l y at t ached t o her m other

. M rs . S h e e h ya lso a p p e a re d o n P a re ja’ s b e h a lf

, tes tify in g th a t P a re

ja i s l oy al and pr ofes s i onal and that J oanne becomes anxi ous w hen h e r m o th e r is n o t p re se n t. A ft er t he hear i ng, t he IJ deni ed Par ej a’ s appl i cat i on i n an or al deci s i on, concl udi ng thatPar ej a di d notp rov e t hather r emoval w oul d r es ul ti n “exc ept i onal and extr emel yunus ual har ds hi p” t o J oanne, t he fourt h r equi r ementfores t abl i s hi ng e lig ib ility f

o r c a n c e ll a t i o n o f

re m o v a l. See 8 U. S

. C. § 1229b( b) ( 1)(D )

. R el y i ng on the B I A ’ s deci s i on i n M at t erof Monr eal , 2 3 I. & N

. D ec . 5 6 (B IA 2 0 0 1 ) (en b an c), th e IJ det erm i ned thatPar ej a’ s pr offe r – cons i s t i ng m ai nl yof evi dence of M exi co’ s i nfer i orl i vi ng condi t i ons and l es s ereduca t i onal o p p o rtu n iti e s a s w e ll as Jo a n n e ’s a lleg e d se p a ra tio n a n x iety w hen herm ot heri s abs ent– fai l ed t o d em o n str at e thatthe har ds hi p t o J oanne w oul d be “s ubs t ant i al l ybey ond t hatw hi ch w o u ld o rd in a rilyb e e x p e c ted to re su lt” f ro m P a re ja’ s re m o v a l. ( A pp. 62 ( quot at i on m arks and ci t at i on om i t t ed)

. ) T he I J found Par ej a’ s pr offe rs i m i l ar to thatof the pet i t i oneri n M at t erof A n da zo la , 2 3 I. & N

. D ec . 3 1 9 (B

. I. A

. 2 0 0 2 ) (e n b an c), w h ere t he B I A deni ed ca ncel l at i on of r emoval t o a s i ngl e M exi can m o ther o f tw o ch il d ren w ith U n it ed S tat es c it izen sh ip. T h e IJ c o n t r a s t e d P a r e

j a ’ s c a s e f

r o m M at t erof R eci nas , 23 I

. & N

. D ec. 467 ( B

. I

. A

. 2002) ( en banc) , w her e t he B I A gr ant ed ca ncel l at i on of r emo v al t o a s i ngl e M exi can mot herof s i x chi l dr en, fourof w ho m w ere U nit ed S t at es ci tizen s. O n the basi s of t his case l aw , t he I J deni ed P arej a’ s appl i cat i on forcanc el l at i on of rem o v al an d g ran ted th e g o v ern m en t’ s ap p li ca ti o n fo r vo lun tary5 departur e. T he I J fur ther o rde r ed Par ej a t o be r emoved i f s he f a iled to d e p a rt v o lu n tar ilyw ith in a tim e c e rta in . P a re ja a p p e a l e d t h e I J ’ s d e c i s i o n t o th e BI A. I n O ct ober 2008, t he B I A di s m i s s ed P ar ej a’ s appea l

. T he B I A found no fa ul tw i t h t he I J ’ s fac tual fi ndi ngs and agr eed that Par ej a had notm ether evi dent i arybur den of de m ons t r at i ng “exc ept i onal and extr emel yunus ual har ds hi p” t o J oa n n e , th o u gh the B IA tho u g h t th is “a sy m p athe ti c c ase . ” (A p p . 4 .) In s um m ar i zed f

orm , the B IA d eterm ined that Jo an n e, P are ja’s l one qual i fy i ng r e l a t i v e fo r har ds hi p pur pos es under § 122 9 b ( b ) ( 1 ) ( D) , h a d n o e x tr a o r d i naryemot i onal oreduca t i onal needs ; t hatJ oanne’ s s epar at i on anxi ety w as not a r el evant c o n sid e ra tio n g iv e n P a r e ja ’s te stim o n yth a t Jo a n n e w o u ld acc om panyhert o M exico in t he eve ntof r emoval ; and that P are ja an d Jo an n e , d esp it e so m e p o tential d ifficu lty , w ere fi nanci al l yabl e t o r eturn t o M exi co and t o es t abl i s h themsel ves th e re . I n a f

o o tn o te, th e B IA su m m a rilyd e c lin e d to re v isit it s rul i ngs i n Mat t erof

R eci nas , M

a tter o f A n da zo la , and M

at t erof Monr eal , w hi ch Par ej a had a t t acke d as w rongl ydeci ded. T he B I A al s o r ej ect ed Par ej a’ s eff or t s t o es t abl i s h par al l el s betw een hercas e and Mat t erof

R eci nas and t o di s t i ngui s h her cas e fr om t he B I A ’ s “sem i nal i nt erpr et at i ons , ” ( A pp. 4 ( quot at i on m arks a n d c itatio n o m itt e d )), o f th e h a rd sh ip sta n d a rd a rticu late d in Ma ttero f A n da zo la and M

at t er of Monr eal

. A ccor di ngl y , t he B I A p e r m i t t e d P a r e

j a t o d e p a r tv o l u n t a r i l y w i t h i n s i x t y d a ys fro m the d a te o f it s o rde r. F ail ing h er v o lun taryd ep arture w ith in th a t ti m e f

ra m e , the B IA o rd e re d th a t sh e b e re m o v e d to M exi co.6 P are ja ha s filed a ti m elyp eti ti o n fo r rev iew o f th e B IA ’s d ec isi o n . A fter the p eti tio n w as f il ed , a p an el of

this C o u rt gr ant ed Par ej a’ s m ot i on fora s t ay of vol unt ary departur e and a sta yo f re m o v a l. T h e g o v e rn m e n t th e re a f ter f iled a m o tio n to di s m i s s t he pet i t i on forl ack of j ur i s di ct i on; thatm ot i on w as r efe r r ed t o t he mer i t s panel

. I n i t s br i ef, the governm ent r ei t er at es i t s pos i t i on thatthi s C our tl acks j ur i s di ct i on overthe w hol e of Par ej a’ s pet i t i on. II. A . Legi s l at i ve Backg r ound B efor e addr es s i ng t he governm ent ’ s j ur i s di ct i onal chal l enge or t he m er i t s of any por t i on of P ar ej a’ s pet i t i on over w h ich w e h a v e ju risd ictio n , itis u se f u l at th e o u tse t to b rie f ly r evi ew t he hi s t or i cal backdr op of the l egi s l at i on ati s s ue her e. U ndert he I m m i gr at i on and N at i onal i t yA ctof 1952 (“ IN A ” ), an a lien p lac e d in d e p o rta tio n p ro c e e d in g s c o u ld pr e v i o u s l ys eek r el i ef f

r om depor t at i on byappl y i ng forw hatw as ca ll ed su sp en sion o f d ep o rt ati o n . 8 U

. S

. C § 1 2 5 4 (a)(1) (1 9 5 2 ). A n al i en coul d o bt ai n s uch r el i ef bys how i ng, among ot her t hi ngs , t hath erdepor t at i on “w oul d r es ul ti n exce pt i onal and extr emel yunus ual har ds hi p t o t he al i en or ” ce r t ai n qual i fy i ng r e l a t i v e s . I

d. Con g r e s s a me n d e d § 1 2 5 4 ( a ) ( 1 ) i n 1 9 6 2 by r epl aci ng t he “e xcept i onal an d extr emel yunus ual har ds hi p” l anguage w i t h “extr eme har ds hi p. ” 8 U

. S. C § 1254( a) ( 1) ( Supp. IV 1 9 5 9 -62 ) (r ep ea led 1 9 9 6 ).7 In 1 9 9 6 , C o n g ress p asse d the I l l egalI m m igrati o n R ef o rm a n d I mmi g r a n tRe s p o n s i b i l i t yActo f 1 9 9 6 ( “ I I RI RA ” ) , Pu b

. L. N o. 10 4-208 , 11 0 S t at
. 3 0 09 (1996 ). In I IR IR A , C on gress , a m o n g o th e r t h in g s , d id a w a yw ith “ s u s p e n s io n o f d e p o rt a tio n ,” s ubs t i tut ed i t w it h a form of r el i ef c al l ed “c ance l l at i on of re m o v a l,” a n d c h a n g e d th e “ e x tre m e h a rd sh ip ” sta n d a rd b a c k to “exc ept i onal and extr emel y u n u su al har ds hi p. ” Ao u n v . I NS , 3 4 2 F .3 d 5 0 3 , 5 0 6 (6 th C ir. 2 0 0 3 ); Her nandez

- Mez qui ta v. A sh c ro ft , 2 9 3 F .3 d 1 1 6 1 , 1 1 6 2 (9 th C ir. 2 0 0 2 ); A ngel

- R am os v. R eno , 2 2 7 F .3 d 9 4 2 , 9 4 5 (7 th C ir. 2 0 0 0 ); A lvi dr es - R eye s v. R eno , 180 F. 3d 199, 202 ( 5th C i r . 1999)

. C ongr es s al s o l i m i t ed th e h a rd sh ip in q u iryto w h e th e r th e a lien c o u ld sh o w h a rd sh ip to a qual ify ing rel at i ve al one; har ds hi p t o t he al i en her s el f i s no lo n g e r a r e lev a n t f

a c to r. 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 2 9 b (b )(1 )(D ); s ee Ka ra g e o rg io u s v . A sh c r o ft , 3 7 4 F

. 3 d 1 5 2 , 1 5 4 n . 4 (2d C ir

. 2 0 0 4 ); He rn a n d ez-Mezq u ita , 2 9 3 F .3 d a t 1 1 6 2 ; A lvi dr es - R eye s , 180 F. 3d at202. U n d e r th e law a s it n o w sta n d s, th e n , an a lien m a yo b tain canc el l at i on of r emoval i f s he pr evai l s at bot h s t eps o f w hat § 1 2 2 9 b (b )( 1 ) i n e f

f e c t p r e s e n ts a s a tw o -s te p p ro c e s s . See R o m e ro -T

o rr e s v . A sh c ro

ft , 3 2 7 F

. 3 d 8 8 7 , 8 8 9 (9th C ir

. 2 0 0 3 ). F irst, th e a lien sh o u ld e rs th e b u rd e n o f sh o w in g th a t sh e is e lig ib le f

o r c a n c e lla tio n o f

re m o v a l. See , e. g. , O keke v. G onz al es , 4 0 7 F .3 d 5 8 5 , 5 8 8 & n .5 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 5 ). A n a lien is el i gi bl e i f s he ( A ) has been phy s i ca ll y pr es enti n the U ni t ed St at es fora cont i nuous per i od of not l es s t han 10 y ea rs i m m ed iat elyp rec ed ing the d ate o f [ h er] appl i cat i on; ( B ) has been a per s on of good m or al8 char act erdur i ng s uch per i od; ( C ) has notb een c o n v ic te d o f

a n o f f e n s e u n d e r . . . [ 8 U .S .C . § 1182( a) ( 2) , 1227( a) ( 2 ) , or1227( a) ( 3) ]

. . . ; and (D ) e sta b lish e s th a t re m o v a l w o u ld re su lt i n exce pt i onal and extr emel yunus ua l har ds hi p t o t he al i en’ s s pous e, par ent , orchi l d, w ho i s a ci t i zen of t he U ni t ed St at es oran al i en l aw ful l yadmi t t ed for perm anentr es i dence

. 8 U

. S

. C § 1 2 2 9 b (b)(1 ). Second, i f the al i en meet s herbur den of establi s hi ng el i gi bi l i t yforcanc el l at i on of r emoval , t he A t t orneyG ener al m a y , in th e e x e rc ise o f h is d isc re tio n , ca n c e l th e a lien ’s r e m o v a l. 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 2 9 b (b )(1 ); s ee Mendez

- R eye s v. A t t ’ y G en. of

the U ni t ed Stat es , 4 2 8 F

. 3 d 1 8 7 , 1 8 9 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 5 ). I n t hi s cas e, t he B I A di d not r eac h t he sec ond s t ep of the canc el l at i on- of- r emoval i nqui r y beca us e i tdeni ed Par ej a r el i ef bas ed on i t s concl us i on t hat s he di d notdemonstr at e thats he w as e lig ib le f o r c a n c e llatio n o f

re m o v a l. T h e p a rties d o n o t d isp u te t hatt h e fi r s tt hr ee c r i t er i a of § 1229b( b) ( 1) ar e met ; onl yt he four t h cr i t er i on i s i n pl ay . A s not ed, t he four t h cr i t er i on r equi r es th a t th e a lien “ e s tab lish [ ] th a t re m o v a l w o u ld re su lt i n exce pt i onal and extr emel yunu s ual har ds hi p t o” a qua l i fy i ng r el at i ve. 8 U

. S. C

. § 1229b( b) ( 1)(D ). T her e i s no di s put e that J oanne i s Par ej a’ s onl yqual i fy i ng r el at i ve.O t hert han a f l eet i ng r efe r ence t o C h evron d e f e r ence and 3 ci t at i ons t o cas es t hat s uppor t i t s caus e onl y i n t he abstr act , t he g o v e rn m e n t ele c ted n o t to c o v e r its b a se s b y re b u tti n g th e m e rits of al m os tanypor t i on of Par ej a’ s pet i t i on. T he governm ent evi dent l ypr es um ed thatw e w oul d agr ee tha t w e l ack ju risd ictio n o v e r th e e n tiretyo f h e r p e tit io n . A t o ra l ar g u m e n t, w e br oughtt he def

i ci enci es i n the g o v ernm ent ’ s br i ef t o t he a tten tio n o f

th e a tto rn e yf

o r th e g o v e rn m e n t an d a sk e d h e r to conveyourconce r ns t o hers uper i or s . W e t rus t s he has done s o, b u twe th i n k o u rme s s a g e i s i mpo r t a n te n o u g h t o d e s er ve a w r i t t e n r e m i n d e r . T h e g o v e r n m e n th a s e v e r y r i g h t– a d u t y, ev en – to tell u s w h en itb eli ev es w e la c k juri sd ict ion o v er a par t i cul arcas e. B u t w hen the governm ents eeks t o r emove an i ndivi dual fr om t hi s countr y– a r es ul tt he Supr eme C our thas r ecogni zed a s “a dr as t i c m eas ur e and a tt i m es t he equi val entof bani s hm entorexi l e, ” Fong H aw Tan v. P helan , 333 U

. S. 6, 10 ( 1948) ( ci t at i on om i t t ed) – i ts eems t o us t hatt he gover nm ent h a s a n e sp e c ial o b lig a tio n to e x p lain , in th e e v e n t it s j ur i s di ct i onal chal l enge fai l s , w hy t he pet i t i oneri s w r ong on t he m er i t s . T he gover nm ent l eft t hat obl i gat i on l ar gel yunful fi l l ed her e. Q ui t e r ece nt l y , w e conf r ont ed a s i m i l arci r cumst ance and under s cor ed the i m por t ance of fol l ow i ng R ul e 31 of t he Feder al R u le s o f A p p e lla te P ro c e d u re . Les l i e v. A t t ’ y G en. of the U ni t ed Stat es , N o . 0 8 -3 1 8 0 , 2 0 1 0 U

. S . A p p . L E X IS 1 3 9 5 2 , a t * 4 n .2 9 B . Juri s di ct i on B efore w e reach t he m eri t s of P arej a’s peti t i on , w e m ust fi r s taddr es s t he governm en t’ s ar gum entthatw e l ack j ur i s di ct i on over anypor t i on of herpet i t i on. See , e. g. , Jahj aga 3( 3d C i r . J ul y8, 2010)

. I n L e slie , w e a lso m a d e c le a r th a t a fai l ur e t o fol l ow t hatrul e coul d r es ul ti n the for fei tur e of a par t y ’ s ar gum ent
. T hatadmoni t i on i s equal l yappl i cabl e her e. 10 v. A t t ’ y G en. of

the U ni t ed Stat es , 5 1 2 F

. 3 d 8 0 , 8 2 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 8 ); Fel iz D ebeato v. A t t ’ y G en. of the U

ni t ed Stat es , 505 F. 3d 2 3 1 , 2 3 3 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 7 ). T h i s Cou r t l a c k s j u r i s d i c t i o n t o r e v i e w th e d e ni al of d i s c r e t i o n a r yr e l i e f

, i n c l u d i n g c a n c e l l a t i o n o f r e mo v a l

. 8 U. S

. C. § 1252( a) ( 2) ( B ) ( i )

. W e may , how ever , r evi ew “cons t i tut i onal cl ai m s orques t i ons of l aw r ai s ed upon a pet i t i on forr evi ew

. . . . ” I d. § 1 2 5 2 (a )(2 )(D ). O u r ju risd ic tio n in th a t re sp e c t is “narr ow l yci rcum scr i bed ” i n thati ti s l i m i t ed to “color a b le cl ai m s or ques t i ons of l aw . ” C os pi t o v. A t t ’

y G en. of the U ni t ed Stat es , 539 F. 3d 166, 170 ( 3d C i r . 2008) ( percur i am) ( quot at i on m a rk s a n d c ita ti o n o m itt e d ). T o d e ter m in e w h e th e r a c laim is col or abl e, w e ask w hether “i t i s i m m at er i al and made s ol el yfor t he purpo se of obt ai ni ng j ur i s di ct i on ori s w hol l yi ns ubs t ant i al a n d f r i v o l o u s . ” A r baugh v. Y & H C or p. , 546 U

. S. 500, 513 n. 10 ( 2006) ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks and ci t at i ons om i t t ed)

. “A p e tit io n f o r re v iew th a t f

a ils to p re se n t . .
. a c o lo ra b le c laim is not hi ng m or e than an a r gum entthatthe I J abus ed hi s di s cr et i on i n det erm i ni ng t hat t he pet i t i oner di d not m eet t he r equi r ement of ex cepti on al and extr em el yun usual hardshi p, w hich i s a m at t er over w hi ch w e have no j ur i s di ct i on. ” Mendez

- C as tr o v. Mukas ey , 552 F. 3d 975, 978 ( 9th C i r . 2009) ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks and ci t at i on om i t t ed)

. T he ques t i on of ourj uri sd ict i on o v e r a c o lo ra b le le g a l cla im d o e s n o t tu rn o n w h e th e r th a t cla im is u ltim a te ly m e ri to ri o u s . B ar co- Sando val v. G onz al es , 51611 F

. 3 d 3 5 , 4 1 n . 6 (2d C ir

. 2 0 0 7 ). If a claim is fri v o lou s, h o w ev er, w e la c k ju ri s d ic tio n to re v ie w it, n o m a tte r i ts la b e l. Jar bough v. A t t ’ y G en. of

the U ni t ed Stat es , 4 8 3 F

. 3 d 1 8 4 , 1 8 9 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 7 ). In o th e r w o r d s , a p a rtym a yn o t d re ss u p a c laim w ith le g a l c lo th in g to in v o k e th is C o u rt ’s ju ri s d ic tio n . I d. Par ej a has i dent i fi ed four m ai n i s s ues forourr es ol ut i on. W e a d d re s s o u r j u ri s d ic tio n o v e r e a c h o n e s e p a ra te ly. See X i ao JiC hen v. U

. S. D ep’ tof Jus t i ce , 4 7 1 F

. 3 d 3 1 5 , 3 2 9 (2d C ir

. 20 06 ) (a cou rt “need [s] t o s tud y t he ar gu m ents assert ed” to asse ss it s jurisdicti o n ). 1. W het her Matter o f Monre al

s houl d be overr ul ed P are j a fi r s tcl ai m s t hatt he B I A ’ s deci s i on i n M a t t erof Monr eal s houl d be overru led bec aus e the B I A m i s i nt erpr et ed th e p h ra se “ e x c e p tio n a l an d e x tre m e ly un u su a l h a rd sh ip ” in I I R I R A

. W e have s quar el yhel d thatbeca us e “[ t ] he dec i s i on wh e t h e ra n a l i e n me e t s t h e h a r d s h i p r e q u i r e me n ti n 8 U. S

. C. § 1 2 2 9 b is . . . a d isc re tio n a ry ju d g m e n t,” w e lac k ju risd ictio n to re v ie w s u c h a d e c is io n . Me n d ez-Mo ra n c h e l v. A sh c ro ft , 338 F

. 3 d 1 7 6 , 1 7 9 ( 3 d C i r . 2 0 0 3 )

. I n t h e g o v e r n m e n t ’ s v i e w, Par ej a’ s at t ack o n t he l egal underpi nni ngs of Monr eal is in r eal i t yan att ack on the B I A ’ s di s cr et i onaryw ei ghi n g of her evi dence

. T hatvi ew i s m i s gui ded. W hi l e the governm ent i s cert ai nl ycorr ectthatw e may notr ehas h t he B I A ’ s har ds hi p cal cul at i on, the governm ent m i s char act er i zes Par ej a’ s at t ack on Monr eal

. Par ej a d o es not cont end thatt he B I A gave s hor ts hr i ftt o herevi dence orfai l ed12 to a d e q u a telya c c o u n t f

o r th e h a rd sh ip sh e a lleg e s J o a n n e w o u ld s uffe ri n t he eve ntof r emoval

. I ns t ead, Par ej a i s chal l engi ng the l egal s t andar d t he B I A us es t o det erm i ne i f an ali en i n her ci r cumst ance s has demonstr at ed el i g ibi l i t yforcanc el l at i on of r emoval

. Si gni fi cant l y , thatchal l enge r equi r es an analy s i s of Monr eal ’s i nt erpr et at i on of a c ongr es s i onal actand, by e x ten sio n , o f

th a t ac t itse lf

. A c c o rd in g ly , P a re ja’ s ch a llen g e is c le a rl ya le g a l q u e s tio n . C f. A vend a no- Es

pej o v. D ep’ tof H om eland Sec. , 4 4 8 F

. 3 d 5 0 3 , 5 0 5 ( 2 d Ci r . 2 0 0 6 ) ( p e rc u r i a m) ( “[ A ] bs ent

a s peci f i c is s ue of

s tat ut or y cons tr uct i on , the term

‘ ques t i ons of l aw ’ i n 8 U

. S. C

. § 1252( a) ( 2) ( D ) does notpr ovi de o u r C o u rt w ith ju risd ictio n to re v iew a p e tit io n e r’s c h a llen g e to a dec i sion fi r m l ycomm i t t ed bys t atut e t o the di s cr et i on of the A t t or neyG ener al

. ” ( emphasi s added a nd quot at i on m arks and c itat io n s o m itt e d )). It is ju st a s c lea rly“ c o lo ra b le” b e c a u se it rel at es s ol el yt o th e n o n d iscreti o n aryq u esti o n w h ethe r th e B IA ’s b in d in g l e g a l s ta n d a rd s a re c o rr e c t. C f. M ar t i nez - R os as v. G onz al es , 424 F. 3d 926, 930 ( 9th C i r . 2005) ( “[T] he al l eged v i o l a t i o n n e e d n o t b e s u b s t a n t i a l , b u t t h e c l a i m mu s th a v e s o me p o ss ib le v a lid ity .” (q u o tatio n m a rk s a n d c itatio n o m itt e d )); s ee , e. g. , Khan v. G onz al es , 495 F. 3d 31, 35 (2d C ir

. 2007) (“ [ D ]e sp ite th e f

a c t th a t K h a n ’s le g a l ar g u m e n t is w ith o u t m e rit, b e c a u s e Kh a n r a i s e s a ‘ q u e s t i o n o f l a w, ’ we c o n c l u d e t h a twe h av e j u ri sd ict ion to r ev iew h is claim

. ”). A s s u c h , P are ja’s ch all en g e in th is r esp ec t fall s n ea tl yw ith in this C o u rt ’s

“ n a r r o wl yc i r c u ms c r i b e d ” j u r i s d i c t i on u n d e r8 U. S

. C. § 1 2 5 2 (a)(2)(D ). 2 . W h eth er th e B IA er re d b y a ttac h ing w eigh t to th e n u m b er o f q u a li fy ing re lati v es in it s hardshi p det erm i nat i on13 T h e se c o n d iss u e P a re

ja s u b m its f

o r o u r re v iew re late s to t he di s t i nct i on t he B I A dr ew betw een hercas e and i t s deci s i on i n Mat t erof

R eci nas . A s not ed, § 1229b( b) ( 1) ( D ) pr ovi des that an ali en ’s e li g ibil ity fo r c an ce ll ati o n o f rem o v al de p en d s in p art on w hethers he es t abl i s hes har ds hi p t o h er “ s pous e, par ent , or c h ild , w h o is a citize n o f th e U n ited S tate s o r an a lien law f u lly ad m itted f

o r pe rm an en t r esid en ce . ” 8 U

. S

. C

. § 1 2 2 9 b (b)(1 )(D ). In its d e c isio n , the B IA re a so n e d th a t, w h e re a s P a re ja h a d o n ly o n e q u a lify in g re lativ e (Jo a n n e ), th e a lien in its d e c is io n in Ma tt er of

R eci nas h a d f

o u rs u c h r e l a t i v e s . Pa r e j a a r g u e s t hat beca us e § 1229b( b) ( 1) ( D ) r efe r s t o onl y one qual i fy i ng r el at i ve, t he B I A err ed i n m eas ur i ng herhar ds hi p s how i ng byr efe r ence t o the num ber of h er qual i fy i ng rel at i ves. W h il e a h ard sh ip d eterm ination u n d er § 1 2 2 9 b (b)(1 )(D ), l i ke the ul t i m at e dec i s i on t o gr antordenycanc el l at i on of r emoval , i s di s cr et i onaryand ther efor e bey ond ourj ur i s di ct i onal p u rv ie w , s ee Mendez

- Mor anchel , 338 F. 3d at179, w her e the B I A i s al l eged t o have m ade a har ds hi p det erm i nat i on bas ed on

“ a n e r r o n e o u s le g a l sta n d a rd ” o r “ o n f a c t-f in d in g w h ich is fl aw ed byan err orof l aw , ” Mendezv. H older , 56 6 F. 3d 316, 322 ( 2 d C ir

. 2009) ( percur i am) ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks and ci t at i o n o m itt ed) , ourj ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew thatdet erm i nat i on i s s ecure. T hati s pr eci s el ythe natur e of Par ej a’ s cl ai m . She pos i t s t hatt he B I A m i s i n terpr et ed the l anguage of § 1 2 2 9 b ( b) ( 1) ( D ) i t s el f, notthatthe B I A m i s appl i ed that pr ovi s i on t o t he fac t s of hercas e. W e ther efor e have j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew t hi s cl ai m , as i t cl ear l y r ai s es a col or abl e ques t i on of la w . C f. G om ez - P er ezv. H

older , 5 6 9 F

. 3 d 3 7 0 , 3 7 2 -73 (8th C ir

. 2 0 0 9 ) (co u rt h ad juri sd ict ion w h ere ali en arg u ed that th e B IA “appl i ed an i ncorr ectl egal s t andar d byfocus i ng on the pr es ent14 ci r cumst ance s of hi s chi l dr en r athert han on the futur e har ds hi ps t hat t heyw oul d fac e i f he w er e r emoved” beca us e thatar gum ent ra ise d a q u e st io n o f

law ); F iguer oa v. Mukas ey , 543 F. 3d 487, 492, 495- 96 ( 9t h C i r . 2008) ( j ur i s di ct i on exi s t ed t o r ev i ew al i en’ s cl ai m t hatt he I J appl i ed i ncorr ectl egal s t andar d “by cons i der i ng onl yt he har ds hi p curr ent l ys uffe r ed bythe chi l dr en

. . . w i t houtcons i der i ng the har ds hi p t he chi l dr en w oul d s uffe r in th e e v e n t th a t th e ir p a re n ts w e r e r e m o v e d ” ); Mi r eles v. G onz al es , 433 F. 3d 965, 969 ( 7th C i r . 2006) ( cour thad j ur i s di ct i on over ar gum ent “that t he i m m i gr at i on j udge made a l ega l err ori n under s t andi ng t he meani ng of ‘ exce pt i onal and ex tr em elyu n u su al ha rdsh ip’”). 3 . W h e th e r t h e B I A e r r o n e o u s ly m a d e a h a r d s h ip de t e r m i nat i on on t he as s um pt i on t hat Jo anne w oul d ret urn t o M exi co w i t h her m ot her Par ej a’ s t hi r d ar gum enti s t hat the B I A “eva l uat ed the l evel of har ds hi p t o J oanne ba s ed upon the as s um pt i on t hats he w oul d r etur n t o M exi co w i t h herm oth er, r atherthan the a s s u m p tio n th a t J o a n n e w o u ld re m a in in th e U n ite d S ta te s . . . .” (P e t’r’s B r. 5 0 .) P a r e

ja c o n ten d s th a t w e h a v e ju risd ictio n to revi ew t his argum ent because, i n h er v iew , i ti m pli cat es a cons t i tut i onal ques t i on. Speci fi cal l y , s he as s ert s , r el y i ng on pr eIIR IR A S ix th C irc u it c a se law , tha t th e B IA im p ro p e rlyf a iled to acc ountfort he har ds hi p J oanne w oul d s uffe ri f she w er e for ced to reli n q u ish w h at P are ja ch ara cterizes a s h er d au g h ter’s c o n stitu tio n a l rig h t, as a U n ited S tate s c iti z e n , to s tay i n th is countr y . W e ar e unconvi nced.A lth o u g h P a r e ja su g g e sts th a t, ev e n if sh e re tu rn s to 4 M exico, Joann e cou l d h ypo t heti cal l yst ayi n the U nit e d S t at es, n e v e ri n t h e s e p r o c e e d i n g s , i n c l u d i n g i n h e rp e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w, has Par ej a r efut ed herow n t es t i m ony t hat J oanne w oul d i n fac t r etur n t o M exi co w i t h heri n t he event of r emoval

. Fur t herm or e, b e c a u se P a re

ja to ld th e B IA in n o u n c e rta in ter m s – a n d in uncontr over t ed t es t i m ony– thatJ oanne w oul d accom panyher t o M e x i c o , we n e e d n o t r e s o l v e h e r r e l a t e d c l a i m t hat § 1229b( b) ( 1) ( D ) i m pos es a pr es um pt i on t hat an al i en’ s U ni t ed St at es ci t i zen c hi l d w i l l r emai n i n t he U ni t ed St at es i f heral i en 15 A s a pre li m inary m att er, P are ja’s asse rt ion that the B IA “as s um ed” thatJ oanne w oul d r eturn w i t h her t o M exi co i ns t ead of s t ay i ng i n t he U ni t ed St at es i s w hol l yund erm i ned bythe rec o rd. P are

ja he rself a ff

irm ati v elyrep rese n te d in sw o rn t es t i m onybefor e the I J thatherdaught er w oul d l eave w i t h her in th e e v e n t o f

re m o v a l. ( E

. g. , A p p . 1 6 0 (a n sw e rin g “ Y e s” to t he ques t i on, “I f y ou had t o r eturn t o M exi co, w oul d y our daught ergo w i t h y ou?”)

. ) H er empl oy er , M r s . Sheehy , s ai d t he sam e thi ng i n t he af

fi davi ts he s ubm i t t ed t o t he I J on Par ej a’s behal f. ( A pp. 270 ( “I f [Par ej a] i s s entback t o M exi co, J oanne w i l l m os tdefi ni t el y go w i t h her

. ”)

. ) I n l i ght of thi s evi dence , t he B I A d i d not , as Par ej a mai nt ai ns , “pr es um [e] [the] exi l e of a n A m er i can citi ze n . . . . ” ( Pet ’ r ’ s B r . 54. ) R ather , bas ed on P a re ja’ s o w n sw o rn r e p r e se n tatio n s, th e B IA c o n c lu d e d th a t it di d notneed t o addr es s P ar ej a’ s “ar gum ent s t hatas s um e [that h e r] re m o v a l w o u ld re s u lt in h e r s e p a ra tio n f ro m J o a n n e .” ( A pp. 3. ) W e s ee no e r r o r in the B I A ’ s havi ng t aken Par ej a at herw o rd, espe ci al l yw hen the r ecor d cont ai ns no evi dence c o n t r a d i c t i n g h e rt e s t i m o n y. 4par enti s r emoved. W e not e, at any r at e, t hat t he s t atut e s peaks onl yi n t erm s of “exc ept i onal and extr emel y unus ual har ds hi p” to the q u ali fy ing relati v e; th e statute’s p lai n lang u ag e n o w h ere i nt i m at es t he pr es um pt i o n that Par ej a ur ges . W e do not nece s s ar i l y for ecl os e the pos s i bi l i t yt hatan al i en coul d pr es s t he ar gum entPar ej a s eeks t o advanc e her e i f the B I A di s count ed the h ard sh ip to an ali en ’s U n it ed S tat es c it izen ch il d b ase d o n p u re s pecul at i on t hat t he chi l d w oul d l eave t he countr y w i t h heral i en p a re n t. S ig n if

ica n tly , tha t circ u m sta n c e is n o t atte n d a n t in th is cas e. 16 Fur t herm or e, Par ej a’ s r el i ance on t he s o- cal l ed doctr i ne of uncons t i tut i onal condi t i ons i s m i s pl ace d. I n bas i c t erm s , that doctr i ne prohi bi t s t he governm entfr om condi t i oni ng the di s cr et i onarygr antof a be nefi ton an i ndi vi dual ’ s w aive r of a c o n s titu tio n a l r ig h t. See D olan v. C i t y of Tiga rd , 512 U

. S. 374, 38 5 (199 4); Frost

& Fros tTruc ki ng C o. v. R ai lr oad C om . of C a l. , 271 U

. S. 583, 593- 94 (1926)

. E ven as s um i ng t hatt hat doctr i ne appl i es her e and thatJ oanne ha s a cons t i tut i onal r i ght t o s t ayi n t he U ni t ed St at es – and w e expr es s no vi ew on ei t her poi nt– ourpr ece dentm akes pl ai n thatt he B I A ’ s or derof re m o v a l as to h e r m o th e r w o u ld n o t in f rin g e o n a n ysu c h rig h t. See A cos ta v. G af

f ney , 558 F. 2d 115 3 , 1 158 ( 3d C i r . 1977) (rejecti n g a c lai m that a m in o r U n it ed S tat es c it izen ’s cons t i tuti o n al r i ghtt o s t ayi n t hi s countr yw as vi ol at ed byher a lien p a re n ts’ d e p o rta tio n b e c a u se “ h e r re tu rn to C o lo m b ia w ith her parent s, i f t hey d e c id e to t ake h er w i t h them as dou btl ess t hey w i l l , w i l l m er el y pos tpone, but not bar , herr es i dence i n t he U n ited S tate s if

sh e sh o u ld u lti m a telyc h o o se to liv e h e re ” ); s ee als o G a ll a n o sa v. U

ni t ed Stat es , 7 8 5 F

. 2 d 1 1 6 , 1 2 0 (4th C ir

.17 1986) ( “The cour t s of appe al s . . . have unifo r m l yhel d t hat depor t at i on of the al i en par ent s does notvi ol at e any co n sti tuti o n al ri g h ts o f th e cit izen ch il d ren . ” (co ll ec ti n g ca ses)); Sch l ei f f er v. Meyers , 644 F. 2d 656, 662- 63 & n. 8 ( 7th C i r . 1981) (sam e). A ccor di ngl y , t hi s i s s ue does notr ai s e a c ol or abl e l egal q u e stio n , an d w e th e re f o re lac k ju risd ictio n to c o n sid e r it. 4 . W het her M

endez
- Mo ra n ch el v. A sh cro

ft sh o u ld be overr ul ed Fi nal l y , Par ej a ar gues t hatw e s hould o verrul e our deci s i on i n Me n d ez-Mo ra n c h e l v . A sh c ro ft , 338 F. 3d at178- 79, w her e w e hel d that t he B I A ’ s det erm i nat i on of w hetheran al i en has me tt h e “ e x c e p t i o n a l a n d e x t r e me l yu n u s u a l h a r d s hi p” stan d a rd in the ca n ce ll ati o n o f re m o v al st atute is d iscreti o n ary a n d th e re f

o re b e y o n d o u r ju risd ictio n a l m a n d a te. P a re ja conce des t hat s he advance s thi s ar gum entonl yt o pr es erve i tfor en banc orSupr eme C o u rt r evi ew . Putanotherw ay , s he ackn ow l edg es that w e cann ot gr ant her th e rel i ef she reque st s. I ndeed, t hi s panel cann o t over turn a pr i orpanel ’ s pr ece dent i al o p in io n . T h ir d C irc u it In ter n a l O p e ra tin g P ro c e d u re 9 .1 ; s ee Mar i ana v. F is her , 338 F. 3d 189, 201 ( 3d C i r . 2003)

. A s s uch, w hi l e thi s cl ai m m aypr oper l ybe des cr i bed as l egal , i ti s not col or abl e bec aus e i ti s ei t her“made s ol el yforthe purpos e of obt ai ni ng j ur i s di ct i on, ” A r baugh , 546 U

. S. at513 n. 10, or has no “pos s i bl e val i di t y , ” Mar t i nez - R os as , 424 F. 3d at930 ( quot at i onIt b e a rs m e n tio n in g th a t Mendez

- Mor anchel is f u lly 5 cons onant w ith ot herci r cui t s ’ cas e l aw on the ques t i on of an ap p ell ate c o u rt ’s ju ri sd ict ion to rev iew the B IA ’s discre ti o n ary h a rd s h ip d e te rm in a t i o n . See , e. g. , De L o u r d e s Ca s tr o De Mer cado v. Mukas ey , 5 6 6 F

. 3 d 8 1 3 , 8 1 5 (9th C ir

. 2 0 0 9 ); Mar t i nezv. A t t ’

y G en. of

the U ni t ed Stat es , 446 F. 3d 1219, 1 2 2 1 -2 2 (1 1 th C ir. 2 0 0 6 ); Mer az - R eye s v. G onz al es , 436 F. 3d 8 4 2 , 8 4 3 (8 th C ir. 2 0 0 6 ); De L a Veg a v . Gon z a l es , 4 3 6 F

. 3d 1 4 1 , 1 4 5 -4 6 (2 d C ir. 2 0 0 6 ); Mi r el es v. G onz al es , 433 F. 3d 965, 9 6 8 -6 9 (7 th C ir. 2 0 0 6 ); R u e da v . A sh c ro ft , 380 F. 3d 831, 831 (5th C ir

. 2 0 0 4 ) (pe r cu ri am ). 18 m arks and ci t at i on om i t t ed ), and ther efor e l i es out s i de our j uri sdi ct i on al bo un ds. 5 C . M er it s H avi ng det erm i ned thatw e have j ur i s di ct i on overtw o of th e iss u e s P a re

ja h a s s u b m itt e d f

o r o u r re v ie w , w e n o w tu rn to t he m eri t s of t ho se i ssues. 1. W het her Mattero f Monre al

s houl d be overr ul ed Par ej a ur ges us t o “overrul e” the B I A ’ s en banc deci s i on in Mat t erof

Monr eal

b a se d o n its a d o p tio n o f w h a t P a re

ja char act er i zes as an err oneous i nt erpr et at i on of t he “e xcept i onal and extr emel yunus ual har ds hi p” s t andar d.19 I n Mat t erof

Monr eal , the B I A addr es s ed the meani ng of th e “ e x c e p tio n a l an d e x tre m e lyu n u su a l h a rd sh ip ” st a n d a rd in IIR IR A

. T h e B IA b eg an it s an aly sis byco m p aring that stan d ard t o t he “e xt r eme har ds hi p” s t andar d i n t he pr e- I I R I R A l aw . T he B I A s tat ed that i tw as “aw ar e of the gene r al rul e thatw hen

‘ C ongr es s adopt s a new la w i ncorpor at i ng s ect i ons of a pr i or l aw , C ongr es s nor m al l ycan be p r e s um ed t o have ha d know l edge of the i nterpret at i on given t o the i nco rporated law , atl east i ns ofar as i t aff

ect s t he new s t atut e. ’ ” Monr eal , 23 I

. & N

. D ec. at 59 ( quot i ng Lori l l ar d v. P ons , 434 U

. S. 575, 581 ( 197 8 )) ( other ci t at i on om i t t ed)

. T he B I A deci ded nott o appl ythat pr es um pt i on t o I I R I R A on t he gr ound t hat , w hi l e the “exc ept i onal and extr eme ly unus ual har ds hi p” phr as e w as i ncl uded i n the IN A of 1952, onl ythatphr as e, as oppos ed t o a s ect i on of pr i or l aw , had bee n i m por t ed i nt o I I R I R A

. T her efor e, t he B I A s tudi ed how t hatphr as e had be en i nt erpr et ed bef o re I I RI RA ’ s e n a c t me n t
. T h e BI A n o t e d t h a t , u n d e r t h e 1 9 5 2 l a w, t hatphr as e appl i ed t o al l appl i cant s – notj us tt hei rqual i fy i ng r el at i ves – and thatt he l egi s l at i ve hi s t ory evi nced c ongr es s i onal in ten t to e x ten d su sp e n sio n o f d e p o r ta tio n o n lyin “uncons ci onabl e” c as es . T he B I A decl i ned t o appl ys uch a hi gh s t andar d t o canc el l at i on of r emoval , how ever , on t he gr ound that, am o n g o ther thin g s, there w as n o th in g in IIR IR A ’s l egi s l at i ve hi s t or y t o s uppor t t he appl i cat i on of s uch a s t andar d. T he B I A w as al s o unper s uaded bythe i nt erpr et ati on of the phr as e i n cas es fr om 1953 t o 1957, befor e the I N A w as amended i n 1962, r easoni ng t hat“th[i s ] cas e l aw cover [ed] onl yt hat per i od of t i m e w hen the ‘ exce pt i onal and extr emel yunus ual har ds hi p’ s t andar d w as appl i ed t o al l appl i cant s fors us pens i on o f d ep o rt ati o n , p re d ati n g the p eriod d u ri n g w h ich th e stan d ard w as r equi r ed pr i nci pal l yforcr i m i nal al i ens , ” and t hat“i n m anyA ft erdet erm ining thatt he new phr as e r equi r ed a 6 h e ig h ten e d sh o w in g b y a lien s se e k in g c a n c e llatio n o f re m o v a l, th e B IA e x a m in e d w h a t sp e c if ic f a c to rs it w o u ld c o n sid e r to det erm i ne i f an al i en’ s s how i ng w as s uffi ci ent
. T he B I A s aw no r eas on t o abandon the fa ct or s i thad cons i s t ent l ycons i der ed undert he s u s p e n s i o n o f

d e p o rt a t i o n s t atut e’ s “extr eme har ds hi p” sta n d ard , b u t r ea so n ed that itw o u ld w eigh tho se f ac tors “ac cor di ng t o t he hi gher st andar d r equi r ed forcanc el l at i on of 20 o f th e se c a se s th e f

o c u s w a s o n h a rd sh ip to th e a lien , a h a rd sh ip el emen tt h a tc a n n o te v e n b e c o n s i d e r e d u n d e rt h e p r e s e nt s t atut e. ” I

d. at61 ( ci t at i ons om i tt ed)

. Fi nal l y , t he B I A poi nt ed o u t th at “this ca se law aro se in a d if f ere n t ov era ll statu tory cont ext a n d obvi ous l ys i gni fi cant l ypr edat ed the dec ades of i nt erpr et at i on of the ‘ e x tr e me h a r d s h i p’ s t andar d t hatcul m i nat ed in ” th e 1 9 9 6 a m e n d m e n ts
. I d. I n vi ew of thes e cons i der at ion s, the B I A hel d t hat “al t hough bot h t he r el evant l egi s l at i ve hi s t ory fr om t he 1952 A ct and the o ld c as e l aw . . . pr ovi de an hi s t or i cal cont extfor eval uat i ng t he ‘ ex ce pt i onal and extr emel yunus ual har ds hi p’ s t andar d i n appl i cat i ons forcanc el l at i on of r emo v al , our pr i nci pal focus i s on t he s t atut orylang uage i t s el f and the le g is la t i v e h i s to ry o f

th e re v is io n s th a t w e re e n a c te d in 1 9 9 6 .” I d. a t 6 2 . U sin g d ictio n a ryd e f in it io n s to u n d e rsta n d a n d to di s t i ngui s h t he ol d and t he new s t andar ds , t he B I A co ncl uded t hat“[t ] he [e xcept i onal and extr emel yunus ual har ds hi p] s t andar d r equi r es a s how i ng of har ds hi p bey ond t hatw hi ch has hi s t or i cal l y been r equi r ed i n s us pens i on of deport at i on ca s es i nvol vi ng t he ‘ extr eme har ds hi p’ s t andar d. ” I d. 6r emoval

. ” Monr eal , 2 3 I. & N . D e c . at 6 3 . T h e B IA re so lv e d to excl ude fr om cons i der at i on any fac t or s r el at ed t o the al i en her s el f, as th e new s t atut e made cl earthatonl yhar ds hi p t o t he qual i fy i ng r el at i ve, as opposed to t he al i en her s el f, coul d be cons i der ed. T hus , t he B I A l i s t ed the fol l ow i ng fa ctor s t o be c o n sid e re d in d e ter m in in g w h e th e r a n a lien h a s a d e q u a tely s how n har ds hi p t o a qual i fy i ng r el at i ve: “the ages , heal th, and ci r cumst ance s of qual i fy i ng l aw ful perm anentr es i dent [s ] and U ni t ed St at es ci t i zen r el at i ves . ” I d. T he B IA al so sai d th a t it w o u ld tak e in to a c c o u n t, f o r e x a m p le, a q u a lify in g c h ild ’s h e a lth pr obl e ms o rc o mpe l l i n g s c h o o l n e e d s , a s wel l a s l i vi ng condi t i ons i n t he countr yof r eturn. I n t he end, t he B I A w r ot e, n o o n e f

a c to r w o u ld b e d isp o sitiv e . In ste a d , “ a ll h a rd sh ip fac t or s s houl d b e consi der ed i n t he aggr egat e w hen as s es s i ng exce pt i onal and extr emel yunus ual har ds hi p. ” I d. at64 ( ci t at i on o m itt e d ). A lth o u g h P a re ja d isc u ss e s th e se f

a c to rs in p a ss in g in her b r i e f , we d o n o t u n d e r s t a n d h e r s p e c i f i c a l l y t o f

a u l tt he B IA ’s enu m erat i on or quali fi cat i on of these fact ors. 21 B I A M emberR os enber g concurr ed i n par tand di s s ent ed in p a rt. W h ile s h e a g re e d w ith th e m a jo rityth a t th e p lain l angu a g e o f

t h e “ e x c e p t i o n a l a n d e x t r e me l yu n u s u a l h a r d s h i p” sta n d a rd su g g e ste d “ so m e typ e o f d if f icu ltyo r b u rd e n th a t is uncomm on, r ar e, ordi ffe r entfr om the norm , ” i d. at66 (R o sen b erg , B o ar d M em b er, co n cu rri n g an d d issen ti n g ), M emberR os enber g di s agr eed w i t h t he maj or i t y ’ s deci s i on not t o i nt erpr ett hatphr as e i n l i ne w i t h B I A prec ed en ts fr om t he 1950s

. U nl i ke the maj or i t y , s he s aw no bas i s fordepart i ng fr om t he rul e announc ed i n Loril l ar d v. P ons “m erel ybecau se C ongr es s adopt ed onl ya phr as e and not a w hol e sec t i on of pr i or22 l aw . ” I

d. ( R os enber g, B oar d M ember , concurr i ng and di s s ent i ng) ( ci t at i ons om i t t ed)

. I n hervi ew , b ec au se t he 1996 amendm ent s r efl ect ed C o ngr es s ’ s aw ar enes s of the ca s e l aw i nt erpret i ng t he ol d har ds hi p s t andar d, t he maj or i t y ’ s r ej ect i on of thatcas e l aw w as i nappr opr i at e. W e or di nar i l y exer ci s e pl enary r evi ew over t he B IA ’s le g a l d e te rm in a tio n s . See , e. g. , Y us upov v. A t t ’

y G en . o f the U ni t ed Stat es , 5 1 8 F

. 3 d 1 8 5 , 1 9 7 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 8 ). H o w ev er, w h e re , as h e re , “w e a re c a lled u p o n to in terp re t a s tatu te th a t is w i t hi n t he s cope of

an age ncy ’ s rul emaki ng and l aw m aki ng a u th o ri ty , o u r in q u iryim p lica tes th e p rin c ip les se t f o rth in C h e v ro n U.S.A ., In c . v. N a tu ra l R e so u r c e s D e

fen se C o u n c il, I nc. , 467 U

. S. 837 ( 1984)

. ” Li n- Zhen g v. A tt ’ y G en. of

the U ni t ed Stat es , 557 F

. 3 d 147, 155 ( 3d C i r . 2009) ( en banc ) ( c ita tio n o m itte d ). “ C hevr on d e f e r e n c e i s r e q u i r e d whe n an agenc y co n strues ori nt erpr et s a s t atut e thati tadmi ni s t er s and th e a g e n c y ’s in te r p re tatio n is b a se d o n a p e rm iss ib le i nt erpr et at i on of the s t atut e. ” Mehboob v. A t t ’ y G en. of

the U ni t ed Stat es , 549 F. 3d 272, 275 ( 3d C i r . 2008) ( i nt ernal q u o tat ion m ark s an d cit ati o n o m itted).

“ C hevr on d e f

e re n c e in v o lv e s a tw o -s te p i n q u ir y .” Y us upov , 5 1 8 F .3 d a t 1 9 7

. “ [ T ]h e c o u rt a sk s firs t if th e sta tu te i s s i l en t o r a m bi guous w i t h r es pectt o t he s peci fi c i s s ue of l aw in th e c a se , u sin g tra d iti o n a l to o ls o f sta tu to r y co n stru c tio n to determ i ne w hetherC on gress had a n i ntent i on on the p reci se ques t i on ati s s ue. ” A ugus t i n v. A t t ’ y G en. of the U

ni t ed Stat es , 52 0 F

. 3d 2 6 4 , 2 6 8 (3d C i r. 20 08 ) ( i nternal quotat i on m arks, al t er at ion and ci t at i on om i t t ed)

. I f the ans w eri s aff i r m at i ve,
“ t h e i n q u i r ye n d s , a s b o t h th e a g e n c ya n d th e c o u r tmus tg i ve23 eff ectt o t he pl ai n l anguage of t he st atut e. ” Y us upov , 518 F. 3d at197 ( ci t at i on om i t t ed)

. H ow ever , “[i ] f C ongres s ’ s i nt ent i on i s notevi dent , t he courtm oves t o the s econd s t ep, w her e the ques t i on fort he courti s w hetherthe ag ency ’ s ans w eri s bas ed on a per m i s s i bl e construct i on of the s t atut e. ” A u g u stin , 520 F. 3d at268 ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks , ot heral t er at i on and cit ati on o m itt e d ). “W h e n C o n g re ss h a s lef t a g a p in a sta tu te, im p licitly l eavi ng t he admi ni s t er i ng agenc yr e s pons i bl e forfi l l i ng t hatgap, a c o u rtm ayn o t sub sti tute it s o w n co n stru cti o n o f a statu tory pr ovi s i on fora r eas onabl e i nt erpr et at i on m ade bythe admi ni s t r at orof an agenc y . ” I d. ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks and cit ati o n o m itted). W e begi n w i t h C hevron s t ep one. “A bas i c t enetof s t atut or ycons t ruct i on i s t hat w e m us tbegi n w i th t he as s um pt i on th a t th e o rd in a r y m e a n in g o f sta tu to rylan g u a g e a c c u ra tely expr es s es t he l egi s l at i ve purpos e. ” Li n- Zheng , 557 F. 3d at155- 5 6 (i n terna l qu o tat ion m ark s, alt era ti o n s an d cit ati o n s o m itted). A s t he B I A r ecogni zed, t he IN A d oes notdefi ne “e xcept i onal and extr emel yunus ual har ds hi p, ” and w e thin k i tbey ond per adventur e thatr eas onabl e peopl e coul d di ffe r on t he meani ng o f t h a t p h ra s e . C

f. I N S v. Jong H

a W ang , 4 5 0 U. S. 1 3 9 , 1 44 ( 1981) ( p er curi am) ( concl udi ng thatt he “e xtr eme har ds hi p” s t andar d undert he pr e- I I R I R A ver s i on o f the I N A w as ambi guous beca us e “[ t ] hes e w or ds ar e nots el f- expl anat ory , and rea so nabl e men coul d eas i l ydi ffe ras t o thei rcons t ruct i on”); He r n a n d ez - Pa t i n o v . I

NS , 831 F.2d 7 5 0, 753 ( 7th C i r . 1987) ( “ C o n g r e s s , i n r e f

u s i n g t o d e f

i n e ‘ e x t r e m e ’ h a r d s h i p f u l l y, a v o id e d th e su b sta n tiv e p o licyd e c isio n a n d h a s d e f e rre d to a g e n c ye x p e rtise .”); M

at t erof H w ang , 10 I

. & N

. D ec. 448, 451 ( B I A 1964) ( i nt erpr et i ng “extr eme har ds hi p” and fi ndi ng t hat24 “[t ] he per s onal pr i vat i on cont empl at ed i n a s i tuat i on char act eri zed by‘ extr eme har ds hi p’ w i t hi n t he meani ng of the s t atut e i s nota def

i nabl e t erm of fi xed and i nfl exi bl e cont entor m eani ng”)

. G i ven thatambi gui t y , w e turn t o the s econd s t ep of t he C hevr on a n a lysis

. S e e A u g u stin , 520 F. 3d at269. A t C hevr on step tw o , w e a sk w h e th e r th e B IA ’s in terp re tatio n is p e rm iss ib le. T h e B IA ’s in terp re tatio n is perm i s s i bl e i f i t i s a “r eas onabl e i nt erpr et at i on” of the r el evant s ta tu te
. C hevr on , 4 6 7 U .S

. a t 8 4 4

. A s n o ted , the B IA b e g a n its a n a ly sis b yre m a rk in g th a t th e “ e x c e p tio n a l an d e x tre m e ly unus ual h ar ds hi p” s t andar d w as s us cept i bl e t o di ffe r ent m ea n ing s. T h at am b igu ityn o tw ith stan d in g , the B IA determ i ned , based o n the pl ai n langua ge o f t he p h ra se as a w hol e, t hat“the h ardshi p s t andar d forcanc el l at i on of r emoval is a h ig h e r o n e th a n th a t u n d e r t h e s u s p e n s io n o f d e p o rt a tio n ,” Monr eal , 23 I

. & N

. D ec. at 59 ( ci t at i ons om i t t ed) , s peci fy i ng th a t th e n e w sta n d a rd re q u ire s a n a lien to d e m o n stra te h a rd sh ip t o a qua l i fy i ng r el at i ve thati s “‘ s ubs t ant i al l y ’ bey ond t he o rd in a ryh a rd sh ip th a t w o u ld b e e x p e c ted w h e n a c lo se f a m ily m em b er leav es t hi s countr y , ” i d. at62. W e s ee nothi ng unr eas onabl e i n t hat det erm i nat i on, as i t i s pr act i cal l ycompel l ed bya si m pl e j uxt apos i t i on of t he t w o phr as es t hemsel ves . B as ed o n th e ir p lain lan g u a g e , n o g re a t in telle c tu a l lea p is re q u ire d to r eal i ze t hat “exc ept i onal and extr emel y unus ual har ds hi p” r equi r es a gr eat ers how i ng t han “e xtr eme har ds h i p. ” C f. Co r t e s - Ca s t i l l o v . I

NS , 997 F. 2d 1199, 1204 ( 7th C ir

. 1993) ( “R el i ef unde rt he ‘ exce pt i onal and e xtr emel yunus ual har ds hi p’ s t andar d of sec t i on [1254( a) ( 2) ] i s even mor e r es t r i ct i ve than the ‘ex tr em e h ard sh ip’ req u ir em en t of sec ti o n [1 2 5 4 (a)(1)].” (f o o tn o te a n d c itatio n o m itt e d )); s ee P i m ent el v. Mukas ey , 53025 F. 3d 321, 324 ( 5t h C i r . 2008) ( percur i am) ( not i ng t hatt he new p h ra se im p o se s a h e ig h ten e d re q u ire m e n t); Mor eno-Mor ant e v. G onz al es , 490 F. 3d 1172, 1177- 78 ( 9th C i r . 2007) ( not i ng that C ongr es s ’ s s ubsti tuti o n o f “ ex tr em e h ard sh ip” w ith “exc ept i onal a n d e x tr e m e l y u n u s u a l h a r d s h i p ” w a s “ p r o m p t e d b y a w ea k en ing o f th e ‘su sp e n s io n o f d ep o rt ati o n ’ req u ir em en ts”); R a m irez-P e re z v . A sh c ro ft , 336 F. 3d 1001, 1006 ( 9th C i r . 2003) ( s i m i l ar )

. A ccor di ngl y , w e per cei ve no bas i s forconcl udi ng, bas ed on II R I R A ’ s pl ai n l anguage , t hat t he B I A ’ s i nt erpr et at i on fal l s out s i de the br oad r ange of perm i s s i bl e i nt erpr et at i ons author i zed byt he s t atut oryl anguage . Fur t hermor e , a s th e BI A co rr e c t l yr ecogni zed i n Monr eal , i t s i n t e rp r e t a t i o n i s b u t t r e s s e d b y I I R I R A ’ s l e g i s l a t i v e h i s t o r y. C f

. B ab bit tv. Sw eetH

om e C ha ptero f C m tys

. f

or a G reatO r. , 5 1 5 U

. S

. 6 8 7 , 7 0 3 -04 (19 9 5 ) (co u rt ’s co n clus ion that ag en cy ’s statu tory interpre tat ion w as p erm issi b le fo u n d “f u rth er su p p o rt f ro m th e leg isla ti v e h isto ryo f th e sta tu te” ); U

ni t ed Stat es v. R i ver s i de Bayvi ew H

om es , I nc. , 4 7 4 U. S

. 1 2 1 , 1 3 1 ( 1 9 8 5 ) ( “ An a g e n c y ’s c o n stru c tio n o f a sta tu te .
. . is en tit led to d e f e re n c e if it is re a s o n a b le . . . in lig h t o f th e la n g u a g e , p o lic ie s , and l egis l ati ve his t ory . . . . ” ( e mp h a s i s a d d e d ) )

. I n e n a c t i n g I I RI RA , C ongr es s expl i ci t l ynot ed that t he i m petus for t he new l aw w as w hatw as per cei ved as t he w at er i ng- dow n of the s us pens i on of dep ort at i on st atute vi a adm i nis t rat i ve d eci si on s: T he manager s have de l i ber at el ychanged the r e q u i r e d s h o wi n g o f

h a r d s h i p f

r o m “ e x t r e me har ds hi p” t o “exc ept i onal and extr emel yunus ual hards h i p” to em ph asi ze t hat the ali en m ust pr ovi de evi dence of harm t o hi s s pous e, par ent , orPar ej a’ s m ai n as s i gnm entof err ores s ent i al l yparr ot s t he 7 Monr eal di s s ent
. A ccor di ng t o Par ej a, “[t ] he B I A ’ s di s r egar d of t he L ori l l ardcanon of s t atut orycons t ruct i on does notr epr es ent a r eas onabl e i nt erpr et at i on of the [c ance l l at i on] s t atut e, and thus is n o t p ro tec ted b yth e d e f e re n c e o rd in a r il y g iv e n th e B IA in interpre ti n g the im m igrati o n law s. ” (P et’r’ s B r. 2 8 -2 9

. ) In L ori l l ard , t he Supr eme C our texpl ai ned that C o n gr es s i s pr es um ed t o be aw ar e of a n

26 c h ild su b sta n tially b e y o n d th a t w h ich o rd in a rily w o u ld b e e x p ec ted to resu lt f ro m the a li en ’s depor t at i on. T he “e x tr e me h a r ds hi p” s t andar d has been we a k e n e d b yr e c e n t a d mi n i s t r at i ve decisi o ns . . . . O uri m m i gr at i on l aw and pol i cy cl ear l ypr ovi de t hatan al i en par entm aynotder i ve i m m i gr at i on benef

i t s t hr ough hi s orherchi l d w ho is a U n ited S tate s c iti z e n . T h e a v a ilab ili ty in tru ly exce pt i onal cas es of re l i ef under[the ca ncel l at i on of r e mov a l s t a tu t e ] mus tn o tu n d e r mi n e th i s or ot herfundament al i m m i grat i on enfor cement po l i ci es. H

. R

. R ep . N o . 1 0 4 -82 8 , at 21 3 -14 (19 9 6 ). G i v e n I I R I R A ’ s p l a i n l a n g u a g e a n d l e g i s l a t i v e h i s t o r y, t her e i s no bas i s forconcl udi ng t hatt he B I A ’ s i nt erpr et at i on of th e “ excep t i on al and extr em el yun usual hardshi p” st and ard is a n yth in g o th e r t h a n “ a p e rm is s ib le c o n s tru c tio n o f th e s ta tu te .” See Chevr on , 467 U

. S. at843- 44 & n. 11

. A s a cons equenc e, 7admi ni s t r at i ve orj udi ci al int erpr et at i on of a sta tu te a n d to a d o p t th a t in terp re tatio n w h e n it r e- enac t s a s t atut e w it h o utchange

. . . . So t oo, w her e . . . C ongr es s adopt s a new l aw i nc o rporat i ng sect i on s of a p ri or l aw , C on gress nor m al l y can be pre s um ed t o have had know l edge o f t h e i n t e rp r e t a t i o n g i v e n t o th e i n c o rp o r a t e d l a w, atl eas ti ns ofaras i taff

ect s the new s t atut e. 434 U

. S. at580- 81. B as ed on L ori l l ard , P areja ar gues t hatt he B I A w as obl i gat ed t o i nt erpr etthe “exc ep t i onal and extr emel yunus ual ha rdship” st and ard byrefer ence to case l aw from the 1 95 0s. T aken outof co n text , the l anguage i n L ori l l ardth a t P a re ja s pot l i ght s ar guabl ys uppor t s her caus e. O n cl os eri ns pect i on, how ever , Par ej a’ s pos i t i on l os es t r act i on fort hr ee i nt err el at ed r eas ons . Fi r s t , t he L ori l l ard canon appl i es onl y“w hen j udi ci al interpre tat ion s h av e sett led th e m ea n ing o f a n ex ist ing statu tory pr ovi s i on . . . . ” Mer r i l l Lynch, P i er ce, Fenner& Sm i th I nc. v. D a b it , 547 U

. S

. 7 1 , 85 ( 2006) ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks and c i t a t i o n s o mi t t e d )

. I n s u c h a c a s e , “ r e p e t i t i o n o f t he s a me l anguage i n a new s t atut e i n d icat es , as a gene r al m att er , the i nt entt o i ncorpor at e i t s j udi ci al i nt erpr et at i ons as w el l

. ” I d. (quotati o n m arks, el l i psi s and cit at i on s om i t t ed). A s Monr eal r ecogni zed, and as Par ej a do es notdi s put e, the ca s e l aw i nt erpr et i ng “exce p ti o n al an d ex tr em elyu n us ual har ds hi p” under t he 1952 ver s i on of the IN A sp ans onl yaboutone dec ade a nd s et t l ed ver y l i t t l e. I ndeed, Par ej a concede s t hatt hos e ea r l ycas es 27“neve rr educed thei ri nt erpr et at i on of ‘ exce pt i onal and extr emel yunus ual har ds hi p’ t o a pr eci s e verbal form ul a thatone c o u ld s u b s titu te f

o r t h a t p h ra s e w ith o u t lo s in g m e a n in g .” ( Pet ’ r ’ s B r . 30

. ) C l ear l y , i f the 1950s deci s i ons di d not deci s i vel ydel i neat e the cont our s of thatphr as e, it ca n n o tbe ser i ou sl yargued t hat the int erpr et at i on of thatph ras e w as so s et t l ed t hat w e s houl d expec t C ongr es s t o have been on n o t i ce o f its m e a n in g s o m e th ir ty yea rs la te r. See Foger t y v. Fantas

y, I nc. , 5 1 0 U

. S

. 5 1 7 , 5 3 2 ( 1 9 9 4 ) ( d e c l i n i n g t o a p p l y L ori l l ard b e c a u se “ [ o ] u r r e v iew o f th e p rio r c a se law itse lf lea d s u s to concl ude thatt her e w as no s ett l ed .

. . i nt erpr et at i on . . . about w h ich C o n g ress c o u ld h av e b ee n aw are ”). S econ d, as L ori l l ardma k e s p l a i n , t h e p r e s u mpt i o n t h at C o n g re ss is a w a re o f

se ttl e d in terp re tatio n s o f a law o rd in a rily a ri s e s w h e re C o n g re s s “ re -e n a c ts ” th e s a m e la w . See , e. g. , A l bem ar l e Paper Co. v. Moody , 4 2 2 U

. S

. 4 0 5 , 4 1 4 n . 8 (19 7 5 ). I mp o r t a n t l y , h e r e , Co n g r e s s d i d n o tr e - e n a c tt h e s a me l a w. I ns t ead, i tenac t ed a ne w law t hatpurpos eful l ys ubs t i tut ed the l anguage of the ol d l aw w i t h di ffe r entl anguage thathappene d t o m i r r ort he l anguage of a l aw t hathad bee n defunc tfors ever al y ear s . T hes e ci r cumst ance s do not compel t he appl i cat i on of the L ori l l ardp re s u m p tio n . See , e. g. , Nigg v. U ni t ed Stat es P os tal Ser v. , 5 5 5 F

. 3 d 7 8 1 , 7 8 7 (9th C ir

. 2 0 0 9 ). Fi nal l y , t he rul e i n L ori l l ard“mustal w ay s be qual i fi ed by t he obs ervat i on t hatevi dence of w hats ubs equentC ongr es s es i nt end pal es i n compar i s on t o pr obat i ve evi dence about w hatthe e n a c t i n gCon g r e s s i nt ended

. ” C oke v

. Long I s l and C ar e at 28H om e, Ltd. , 3 7 6 F .3 d 1 1 8 , 1 3 0 n .4 ( 2 d C ir. 2 0 0 4 ) (e m p h a sis a d d e d ), vacated and r em anded on othergr ounds , 546 U

. S. 1147 (2 0 0 6 ); acc or d H

ender s on v. Shi ns eki , 589 F. 3d 1201, 1215 (F ed. C i r . 2009)

. A s the B I A obs erved i n Monr eal , the re is a b u n d a n t ev id e n c e o f w h a t C o n g re ss a c tu a lly in ten d e d w h e n it enac t ed I I R I R A

. A s not ed, C ongr es s w as conce r ned that admi ni s t r at i ve dec i s i ons had l ow er ed the barfordet erm i ni ng w hatcons t i tut es har ds hi p t o a qual i fy i n g rela t i ve and thus soug ht t o im po se a heav i er burden o n a l i ens. U nd er these c irc u m sta n c e s, it w a s c e rta in lyp e rm iss ib le f o r th e B I A to re ly on an unequi vocal s t at ementof i nt entfr om the C ongr es s that e n a c te d II R IR A

. See H

ar vey v. Johanns , 49 4 F. 3d 23 7, 24 3 (1st C i r . 2007) ( r ej ect i ng r el i ance on L ori l l ard becau se “C on gress – w h a tev e r its a w a r e n e ss o f th e re g u latio n s – w a s u n a rg u a b ly f o c u se d o n a m e lio ra ti n g th e e f f e c ts o f [ a p re v io u s ju d icia l] d ec isi o n ”). Par ej a al s o at t acks t he B I A ’ s en banc deci s i on i n M at t er 8 o f A n da zo la , w h e re th e B IA d e n ied c a n c e llatio n o f re m o v a l to a s i ngl e M exi ca n m o t herof tw o U ni t ed St at es ci t i zens bas ed l ar gel y on t he re as oni ng of Monr eal

. T he B I A i n A n da zo la w as “s ym pathet i c” t o t he al ien’s cas e, 23 I

. & N

. D ec. at322, but 29 w e m u st de fe r t o the B IA u n d er C hevr on . See M ehboob , 549 F .3 d a t 2 7 9 ; A u g u stin , 5 2 0 F .3 d a t 2 6 9 -7 2 ; Y us upov , 518 F. 3d at 2 0 0 ; B r is eno- F l or es v. A t t ’ y G en. of the U ni t ed Stat es , 492 F. 3d 2 2 6 , 2 3 1 (3 d C ir

. 2 0 0 7 ). A cc o rdin g ly , w e w il l den yP are ja’s peti t i on i nsofa r as i tat t acks M at t er o f Mo n real

an d the B IA ’s in terp r e tatio n o f

th e c a n c e llatio n o f

re m o v a l sta tu te’ s h a rd sh ip s t andar d. 8poi nt ed outt hat“C ongr es s has now i m pos ed a s t andar d of har ds hi p t hati s s i gni fi cant l y m or e bur dens om e t han the form er ‘ex tr eme har ds hi p’ s t andar d, ” i d. T he B I A found the al i en’s sh o w in g

– w h ich , lik e P a re ja’ s, w a s lim ited to m o stlye c o n o m ic detr i m ent and l es s ereduca t i onal oppor tuni t i es forherchi l dr en

– in a d e q u a te u n d e r “ th e v e ry h ig h s ta n d a rd o f th e c u rr e n t la w .” I d. E i ght M ember s di s s ent ed, ar gui ng thatt he al i en s houl d have p re v a ile d b a se d o n h e r p a rticu lar c irc u m sta n c e s w h ile r ecogni zi ng t hatt hi s w as “a c l os e ca s e, ” i d. at 3 2 9 ( O s una, Boa r d M e mbe r , d i s s e n t i n g ) , a n d wi t h o u tc a l l i n g i n t o q u es t i on t he s oundnes s of Monr eal ’ s l egal foundat i on. Par ej a cl ai m s t hat i n A n da zo la “[t ] he B I A compounded t he err orof Monr eal ” by “doubl e- count [i ng] C ongr es s i onal i nt ent t o narr ow t he cl as s of el i gi bl e al i ens , and i n s o d o i ng exac erbat ed i t s uns ound departur e fr om t he pr e- I I R I R A pr ec edent s on the meani ng of ‘ex ce p ti o n al an d ex tr em elyu n u su al ha rdsh ip[

. ]’” (P et’r’ s B r. 41 -42. ) Parej a’s i sol at i on of t he B IA ’s st at em ent that C on gress , i n the n ew cance l l at i on of rem ov al st atute, “narr ow ed the cl ass of al i ens w ho coul d qual i fyforr eli ef, ” A n da zo la , 2 3 I

. & N. D ec. at 5 8 , i s fornought

. T hats t at ementm er el yr efl ect s t he B I A ’s re cogni t i on – and ac cur at e r ecogni t i on atthat– that C ongr es s r ai s ed the barforal iens i n I I R I R A

. T o t he ext ent Pa r e j a ’ s a s s a u l to n A n da zo la m i r r or s herat t ack on Monr eal , it fai l s fort he s ame r eas ons w e have al r eadyci t ed. 30 2 . W h eth er th e B IA er re d b y a ttac h ing w eigh t to th e n u m b er o f q u a li fy ing re lati v es in it s hardshi p det erm i nat i on Pa rej a ar gues thatt he B I A found heri nel i gi bl e for31 canc el l at i o n o f re m o v al ba sed o n an im p erm issi bl e cons i der at i on i n i t s har ds hi p cal cul at i on. S p ec ifi cal l y , s he cont ends t hatt he B I A i ncorr ect l yfocus ed on the numberof herqual i fy i ng r el at i ves and nots i m pl yon t he har ds hi p t o hers ol e qual i fy i ng re lativ e in th e e v e n t o f

re m o v a l. T hi s chal l enge i s agai n governe d byt he C hevr on anal y s i s . T hus , w e must fi r s t d e t e r mi ne w het her § 1229b( b) ( 1) ( D ) “i s s i l entorambi guous w i t h res pectt o t he s peci fi c i s s ue of l aw i n the ca s e, us i ng t r adi t i onal t oo ls of s t atut o rycons t ruct i on t o det erm i ne w hetherC ongr es s had an i nt ent i on on t he pr eci s e ques t i on ati s s ue. ” Li n- Zheng , 557 F. 3d at155 ( quot i ng A u g u stin , 5 20 F. 3d at268) ( quot at i on m arks om i t t ed)

. T hatpr ovi s i on s ay s thatcanc el l at i on of re m oval m ay b e g r a n ted to a n a lien w h o “ e sta b lish e s th a t re m o v a l w o u ld r e s u l ti n e x c e p t i o n a l a n d e x t r e me l yu n u s u a l h a r d s h i p t o t he al i en’ s sp o u se, par ent , orchi l d, w ho i s a ci t i zen of t he U ni t ed S ta te s o r a n a lie n la w f

u lly a d m itte d f

o r p e rm a n e n t r e s id e n c e .” 8 U

. S. C

. § 1229b( b) ( 1) ( D )

. T he s t atut e i s cl ear l y w r i t t en i n the s i ngul ar , and i t s peaks w i t hout equi vocat i on: har ds hi p m aybe e sta b lish e d b yre f

e re n c e to b u t o n e q u a lify in g re lativ e . T h e re is not hi n g i n § 1 2 2 9 b ( b ) ( 1 ) ( D) t o s u g g e s tt h a te l i g i b i l i t yf or canc el l at i on of r emoval – as oppos ed t o t he di s cr et i onarygr ant ordeni al of ca ncel l at i on of re m oval – i s i n anyw aya func t i on of h ow m anyqu al i fy in g rel at i ves an a l i en h as. B ecause “congr es s i onal i nt enti s cl ear , ‘t he [ C hevr on ] i nqui r yends , as bot h t he age ncyand [w e] m us tgi ve ef fec tt o the pl ai n l anguage of the s t atut e. ’ ” Li n- Zheng , 557 F. 3d at155 ( quot i ng Y us upov , 518 F. 3d at197)

. U nder t he s t atut e, then, w hetherJ oanne w as Par ej a’ s onl yqual i fy i ng r el at i ve orone of s ever al w o u ld not have be en a pr operfocus o f inqui r yfort he purpos e of32 d e te rm in in g P a re

ja ’s e lig ib ility f

o r c a n c e lla tio n o f re m o v a l. C f. Shi Li ang Li n v. U

. S. D ep’ tof Jus t i ce , 494 F. 3d 296, 305 ( 2d C i r . 2007) ( en banc ) ( fi ndi ng t hatt he phra s e “a per s on w ho has b ee n fo rce d to abo rt a pre g n an cy o r to un d erg o in v o lu n tary s t er i l i zat i on” i n 8 U

. S. C

. § 1101( a) ( 42) “coul d notbe more cl ear i n i t s r efe r ence t o ‘ a per s on, ’ r atherthan ‘ a coupl e, ’ w h o has b ee n s u b je c te d to a f

o rc e d a b o rt io n o r i n v o lu n ta ry st e ri li za ti o n ”), c itedw ith a

p p ro v a l in Li n- Zheng , 557 F. 3d at156. H er e, t he B I A began i t s anal y s i s bydet erm i ni ng t hat Par ej a’ s onl yqual i fy ing r el at i ve w as J oanne. H avi ng det erm i ned as m uch , t he B I A turned i t s at t ent i on t o w hether Par ej a had m et her bur den of s how i ng har ds hi p t o J oanne. T he B I A r ej ect ed Par ej a’s clai m thatJ oanne ha d s er i ous emot i onal pr obl ems orcompel l i ng educa t i onal needs , poi nt i ng t o a l ack of evi dence

. T he B I A al s o ci t ed Par ej a’ s t es ti m o nythatJ oanne w o u ld r eturn to M ex ico w ith h er, co n clud ing that J o a n n e’s a lleg e d se p a ra tio n a n x ietyw a s n o t a r e lev a n t co n sid e ra tio n in l i ghtof thatt es t im o n y . T he B I A fur t hernot ed thatPar ej a had s om e s avi ngs t hatw oul d enabl e hert o gai n a foot i ng i n M exi co w ith Jo an n e, an d that P are ja ha d fa il ed to es tablish tha t Joa n n e’s f a th e r w o u ld c e a se m a k in g c h ild su p p o rt p a ym e n ts or se e in g h is dau gh t er i f she returned to M exico. S i gn i fi cantl y , no ne o f t hese cons i der at i ons r efl ect t hat t he B I A i m perm i s s i bl yconce ntr at ed on t he numberof Par ej a’ s qual ify ing r el at i ves . T he por t i on of th e B IA ’s d e c isio n o n w h ich P a re ja p rin c ip a llytra in s h e r sig h ts i s i t s d is cus s i on of M

at t erof R eci nas . I n t hatdi s cus s i on, the B I A s oughtt o di s t i ngui s h R eci nas fro m P are ja’s cas e. T h e B IA not ed thatt he R eci nas p e tit io n e r “ w a s th e so le s u p p o rte r o f six chi l dr en, . . . [and] had no s uppor tfr om h erchi l dr en’ s father33 . . . . ” ( A pp. 4. ) “B ycontr as t, ” the B I A r eas oned, Par ej a “ha s one qual i fy i ng r el at i ve . . . . ” (I d. ) W e agr ee w i t h Par ej a that the B I A ’ s appar entbas i s for d i f f e r e n t i a t i n g h e rc a s e f

r o m R eci nas i s pot ent i al l ypr obl emat i c, as i ts u g g est s t hatt he B I A m ayhave gi ven w ei ghtt o an i m perm i s s i bl e fa ct orunder § 1229b( b) ( 1) ( D )

. I n ourvi ew , t he B I A ’ s di s cus s i on of R eci nas i s s us cept i bl e t o at l eas ttw o br oad i nt erpr et at i ons . O n t he one ha nd, by ci t i ng how m anyqual i fy i ng r el at i ves t he R eci nas pet i t i oner had, t he B I A s i m pl ym i ghthave m ea n t tha tt he R eci nas p e tit io n e r h a d e sta b lish e d h a rd sh ip to eac h i ndi vi dual qual i fy i ng r el at i ve beca us e herr es our ces necessari l yw ou l d h ave b een spread m ore thinl ythan P arej a’s , a s P a re ja is f in a n c ia llyre sp o n sib le f o r o n lyo n e in d iv id u a l, J oanne. T hi s appr oach w oul d have be en p erm i s s i bl e under § 1 22 9b (b) (1) (D ). O n the ot her h a nd , the B IA ’s decis i on al so c o u ld b e re a d to m e a n th a t th e B IA th o u g h t R eci nas w as di s t i ngui s habl e on the gr ound t hatPar ej a di d not have a s m any qual i fy i ng r el at i ves as t he R eci nas pet i t i oner . I f thi s r eadi ng ac cu ratelyref

lects th e B IA ’s m o d e o f a n a lysi s, the B IA comm i t t ed l egal err or . O f cour s e, ther e mayw el l be other expl anat i ons fort he B I A ’ s tr eatm entof R eci nas . G iven o u r u n ce rt ainty o v er th e m ea n ing o f th e B IA ’s deci s i on i n t hi s s ol e r es pectand w hat appea r s t o us as m or e than j us ta r emot e pos s ibi l i t ythatthe B I A fai l ed t o i m pl ement congr es s i onal i nt ent by r equi r i ng Par ej a t o es t abl i s h har ds hi p by r efe r enc e to a co n side rat i on not cont empl at ed by § 1229b( b) ( 1) ( D ) , w e bel i eve the prudentcour s e i s t o gr ant Par ej a’ s pet i t ion in pa r tand r emand t hi s cas e fort he l i m i t ed p u rp o se o f

a llo w in g th e B IA e ith e r to c lar if yits d e c isio n o r, inJ udge G r eenbe r g j oi ns i n J udge Fi s her ’ s compre hens i ve 9 opi ni on i n al l r es pect s butpoi nt s outt hatr egar dl es s of w hether ornott her e w as a mi s t ake i n t he appl i cat i on of R eci na s in th is cas e, and r egar dl es s of t he num ber of chi l dr en i m pact ed bythe deni al of a n ap p l i cat i on forcanc el l at i on of r emoval , t he o v e ra rc h in g c o n sid e ra tio n h e re is w h e th e r th e a lien ’s r e m o v a l, in th is c a se P a reja, w o u ld re su lt i n “ e x c e p tio n a l an d e x tre m e ly unus ual har ds hi p t o” the par ent ’ s chi l d, in thi s cas e J oanne. J udge G r ee n ber g i s t empt ed t o s ayt hatw e s houl d denyt he pet i t i on for r evi ew beca us e no mat t erw hatthe B I A concl udes on r emand, t he har ds hi p her e, t hough undoubt edl ys ever e, sim p lyc a n n o t b e c o n sid e re d to b e “ e x c e p tio n a l an d e x tre m e ly u n u su a l” w h e th e r o r n o t Jo a n n e a c c o m p a n ies h e r m o th e r to M e x ico w h e n h e r m o th e r e ith e r d e p a rts v o lu n ta r il yo r is rem o v e d

. Y et Ju d g e G ree n b erg rec o g n izes tha t th ere are in trica te ju risd ictio n a l q u e stio n s in v o lv e d in th e se a p p e llate p ro c e e d in g s a n d , in th e c irc u m sta n c e s, w e a re tak in g a w ise p a th i n r emandi ng as t he opi ni on pr ovi des

. H e w ant s t o emphasi ze, how ever , t hat byr emandi ng w e ar e noti m pl y i ng t hatw e have a p o sitiv e v iew o f

th e m e rits o n th e o v e ra rc h in g q u e stio n in th is ca se, i .e . w o u ld the h ard sh ip to Jo an n e f rom h er m o ther’s re m o v a l b e “ e x c e p tio n a l a n d e x tr e m e ly u n u s u a l.” 34 th e e v e n t th e B IA d e ter m in e s th a t itm a d e a m ista k e in its appl i cat i on of R eci nas t o Par ej a’ s cas e, t o deci de ane w bas ed on t he curr entr ecor d w hetherPar ej a has es t abl i s hed el i gi bi l i t yfor canc el l at i on of r emoval us i ng the pr operhar ds hi p s t andar d. 935 III . Fort he for egoi ng r eas ons , w e w i l l gr antPar ej a’ s pet i t i on t o t he ext enti tr el at es t o the B I A ’ s cons i der at i on of the number of herqual i fy i ng r el at i ves , and r emand t hi s cas e t o t he B I A for th e lim ited p u rp o se o f

a llo w in g it to c lar if

y o r to re c o n sid e r its appl i cat i on of Ma t t e ro f Re c i nas t o t hi s cas e. W e w i l l deny Par ej a’s pet i t i on t o t he ext enti tas ks us t o overrul e M at t erof Monr eal

. Fi nal l y , w e w i l l di s m i s s t he bal ance of the pet i t i on for l ack of j ur i s di ct i on.