Cite as 25 I&N Dec. 885 (BIA 2012) Interim Decision #3763

885

Matter of Antonio CALDERON-HERNANDEZ, Respondent

Decided August 3, 2012

U.S. Department of Justice

Executive Office for Immigration Review

Board of Immigration Appeals

An applicant for cancellation of removal seeking to establish exceptional and extremely

unusual hardship to his or her child is not required to provide an affidavit and other

documentary evidence regarding the child’s care and support upon the alien’s removal if the

child will remain in the United States with another parent, even if the other parent is in this

country unlawfully. Matter of Ige, 20 I&N Dec. 880 (BIA 1994), clarified.

FOR RESPONDENT: Jeremiah W. Stuchiner, Esquire, Las Vegas, Nevada

FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY: An Mai Nguyen, Assistant

Chief Counsel

BEFORE: Board Panel: MILLER and GREER, Board Members; KENDALL CLARK,

Temporary Board Member.

KENDALL CLARK, Temporary Board Member:

In a decision dated April 14, 2011, an Immigration Judge denied the

respondent’s application for cancellation of removal under section 240A(b)(1)

of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1) (2006),

finding that he did not establish the requisite hardship to a qualifying relative.

The respondent, a native and citizen of Mexico, has appealed from that

decision. The record will be remanded to the Immigration Judge for further

consideration of the hardship that may result to the respondent’s United States

citizen children if he is removed from this country.

To establish eligibility for relief under section 240A(b)(1) of the Act,

an alien must prove that he has been physically present in the United States for

a continuous period of not less than 10 years immediately preceding the date

of his application; that he has been a person of good moral character during

that period; that he has not been convicted of a specified offense; and that his

removal would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to his

spouse, parent, or child who is a citizen of the United States or an alien

lawfully admitted for permanent residence.

The sole issue on appeal is whether the respondent established that any

of his three United States citizen children would suffer exceptional and
Cite as 25 I&N Dec. 885 (BIA 2012) Interim Decision #3763

886

extremely unusual hardship upon his removal to Mexico. The respondent

specifically testified that if he were removed to Mexico, his children would

remain in the United States with their mother, who is also a native and citizen

of Mexico, is unlawfully in the United States, and was not in proceedings

at the time of the respondent’s hearing.

We have held, in the context of an application for suspension of

deportation, that where an alien alleges that extreme hardship will be suffered

by his United States citizen child were the child to remain in the United States

upon the parent’s or parents’ deportation, the claim will not be given

significant weight absent “an affidavit from the parent or parents stating that

it is their intention that the child remain in this country, accompanied

by evidence demonstrating that reasonable provisions will be made for the

child’s care and support.” Matter of Ige, 20 I&N Dec. 880, 885 (BIA 1994).

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in whose jurisdiction

this case arises, upheld our decision in Matter of Ige and concluded that “this

is a valid evidentiary requirement.” Perez v. INS, 96 F.3d 390, 393 (9th Cir.

1996).

Citing both Matter of Ige and Perez v. INS, the Immigration Judge stated

that because the respondent did not submit an affidavit, he would analyze the

hardship issue only under the premise that the respondent’s three United States

citizen children would accompany him to Mexico upon his removal. The

Immigration Judge found that under that scenario, the respondent did not

establish that any of his children would suffer exceptional and extremely

unusual hardship in Mexico upon his removal.

However, in Matter of Ige and Perez v. INS, both parents were in removal

proceedings. We noted in Matter of Ige, 20 I&N Dec. at 885-86, that a claim

that the children would remain in the United States “can easily be made for

purposes of litigation,” and we emphasized that “it is generally preferable for

children to be brought up by their parents.” We imposed a requirement that

where the parents intend for their United States citizen child to remain in this

country upon their deportation, they must provide both an affidavit stating that

intention and accompanying evidence to demonstrate who would care for and

support the child.

In this case, by contrast, only one parent is in proceedings. Where both

parents are living in the United States and the parent who is in proceedings

indicates an intention that a child will remain in the United States upon his

or her removal, an affidavit and other documentaryevidence regarding the care

and support of the child is not required. This is so even if the alien intends

to leave the child with a parent who is not lawfully in this country.

It is reasonable in such cases to assume that the child will be cared for and

supported by the parent who remains here, absent evidence to the contrary.

Where the remaining parent is not here lawfully but is not in proceedings,
Cite as 25 I&N Dec. 885 (BIA 2012) Interim Decision #3763

887

we will not speculate on the likelihood that he or she will be placed

in proceedings or what will happen if that occurs. The Ninth Circuit has

also indicated that an affidavit would not be required where the child would

be left in the care of the other parent who remained in the United States.

Salcido-Salcido v. INS, 138 F.3d 1292 (9th Cir. 1998).

Accordingly, we find that a remand is warranted for further consideration

of the respondent’s application for cancellation of removal. On remand, the

Immigration Judge should also consider the hardship to the respondent’s

United States citizen children if they remain in this country with their mother.

ORDER: The record is remanded to the Immigration Judge for further

proceedings consistent with the foregoing opinion and for the entry of a new

decision.