Opinion ID: 621996
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Cancellation of Removal Application

Text: Generally we do not have jurisdiction to review the agency’s denial of an application for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b) based on an alien’s failure to establish “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship.” See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B); see also Barco-Sandoval v. Gonzales, 516 F.3d 35, 39 (2d Cir. 2008). However, pursuant to the REAL ID Act, we retain jurisdiction to review non-frivolous constitutional claims and questions of law, and we review such questions de novo. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D); Vargas-Sarmiento v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 448 F.3d 159, 164-65 (2d Cir. 2006). We dismiss the petition as to cancellation because although the application of an improper standard when exercising discretion constitutes a question of law, Wallace v. Gonzales, 463 F.3d 135, 138 (2d Cir. 2006), Rojas’s argument does not present a non-frivolous question of law, see Barco-Sandoval, 516 F.3d at 40. Rojas argues that the IJ applied a hardship standard inconsistent with BIA precedent. This argument is unavailing. Although the BIA has noted that an alien need not demonstrate hardship that rises to an “unconscionable” level, the IJ properly required Rojas to establish hardship that is “substantially beyond” that which ordinarily would be expected when a close family member leaves this country. See Matter of Monreal, 23 I. & N. Dec. 56, 60, 62 (B.I.A. 2001); see also Matter of Recinas, 23 I. & N. Dec. 467, 468 (B.I.A. 2002). In contrast to the petitioner in Recinas, where the BIA found the hardship standard met, Rojas’s wife testified that Rojas’s U.S.-citizen children would remain in the 3 United States. Although Rojas testified that his removal would cause his family members great emotional distress and deprive them of his income, economic detriment to qualifying relatives alone does not meet the hardship standard, and emotional strain is not an unusual consequence of deportation. See Matter of Andazola-Rivas, 23 I. & N. Dec. 319, 322 (B.I.A. 2002). Because Rojas has not raised a question of law substantial enough to invoke our jurisdiction, see Barco-Sandoval, 516 F.3d at 40, the petition is dismissed to the extent it challenges the agency’s denial of cancellation of removal. For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED in part and DISMISSED in part. As we have completed our review, the pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition is DISMISSED as moot. FOR THE COURT: Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk 4