Opinion ID: 3060327
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Cancellation of Removal Standard

Text: We review the IJ’s legal determinations de novo. Hernandez v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 513 F.3d 1336, 1339 (11th Cir. 2008). The Attorney General has the discretion to cancel the removal of a non-permanent resident alien who has (A) been continuously, physically present in the United States for not less than ten years, (B) been a person of good moral character, (C) not been convicted of certain listed offenses, and (D) established exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to a qualifying relative. 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b). The “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” standard, which was established by legislation enacted in 1996, is “higher than the ‘extreme hardship’ standard under the previous suspension of deportation provision.” Gonzalez-Oropeza, 321 F.3d at 1332, 1333. According to the BIA, “the hardship to an alien’s relatives . . . must be substantially beyond the ordinary hardship that would be expected when a close family member leaves this country.” In re 4 Monreal-Aguinaga, 23 I.&N. Dec. 56, 62 (BIA 2001) (quotation omitted). This standard requires that cancellation of removal should be “limited to ‘truly exceptional’ situations,” but although the standard is high, it is “less than ‘unconscionable.’” Id. at 60, 62. Having reviewed the record, we conclude that the IJ identified and applied the correct legal standard in this case. The IJ repeatedly identified the exceptional and extremely unusual hardship standard and made appropriate comparisons to the previous standard. The IJ even clarified that she would have reached a different conclusion under the lower standard. Therefore, we conclude the IJ applied the proper standard and we deny the petition in part as to this issue.