Court Opinion

ID: 9372048
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-17 18:00:24.57255+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:31.990799
License: Public Domain

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

                        UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                             FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
                                  _____________

                                       No. 21-1194
                                      _____________

                           HECTOR SANCHEZ-ESCANDON,
                                    Petitioner

                                              v.

              ATTORNEY GENERAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                            ______________

                      On Petition for Review of a Final Order of the
                             Board of Immigration Appeals
                                    No. A216-647-159
                         Immigration Judge: Alice Song Hartye
                                    ______________

                  Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) on
                                    March 4, 2022

                Before: McKEE, AMBRO, and SMITH, Circuit Judges

                            (Opinion filed: February 17, 2023)

                               _______________________

                                     OPINION***
                               _______________________


  Judge McKee assumed senior status on October 21, 2022.

   Judge Ambro assumed senior status on February 6, 2023.
***
    This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.
McKEE, Circuit Judge.

       Hector Sanchez-Escandon petitions for review of the Board of Immigration

Appeals’ final order of removal and its denial of his motion to remand. For the reasons

that follow, we will grant the petition, vacate the BIA’s decision, and remand for further

proceedings consistent with this opinion.

                                            I.1
       Sanchez-Escandon sought cancellation of removal, arguing that it would result in

an exceptional and extremely unusual hardship for his family. He is married, has two

stepdaughters, and has one biological son from a previous relationship. Among his

arguments, Sanchez-Escandon contended that his removal would impose a particular

hardship on his son, who had been suffering emotional and psychological distress since

his father’s detention. The Immigration Judge found that—although Sanchez-Escandon’s

son would be left with his stepmother who did not have legal custody of him— “it is only

reasonable to assume [he] will be adequately cared for and supported.”2 The IJ explained:

“One parent will remain in the United States.”3 After considering the other potential

hardships, the IJ denied Sanchez-Escandon’s application for cancellation of removal.

1
  The BIA had jurisdiction to hear Sanchez’s case under 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.1(b)(3) and
1240.15 (2019), which grant it appellate jurisdiction over the decisions of immigration
judges in removal cases. Our jurisdiction to review the Board’s order is governed by 8
U.S.C. § 1252, which confers exclusive jurisdiction on the federal courts of appeals to
review most final orders of removal. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1252(a)(1), (5).
2
  A.R. 78.
3
  A.R. 78.

                                             2
       Sanchez-Escandon appealed this denial to the BIA. While his appeal was pending,

he also filed a motion to remand for consideration of additional information regarding his

son’s psychological harm and the strained relationship between his son and his wife. The

BIA adopted and affirmed the IJ’s denial of the cancellation of removal and denied the

motion for remand.

                                             II.

       Although we do not have jurisdiction to review the BIA and IJ’s discretionary

determinations, we retain jurisdiction to review colorable constitutional claims and

questions of law.4 The Attorney General argues that we lack jurisdiction to review the

agency’s denial of Sanchez-Escandon’s application for cancellation of removal because

the determination that he had not shown sufficient hardship is discretionary. The agency,

however, based this decision on an erroneous conclusion of law—that Sanchez-

Escandon’s son would have “one parent…remain[ing] in the United States.”5

       “Parent” is a legal term, typically governed by state law, but also defined by

federal law in the Immigration and Nationality Act.6 The INA defines “parent” as

someone who has a relationship with a “child,” as defined by the statute.7 The INA

specifies that this definition applies in the context of non-citizen admission qualifications

and entry documents, such as visas.8 The statute offers no definition of either term in the

4
  8 U.S.C. §§ 1252(a)(2)(B)(i), (D).
5
  A.R. 78.
6
  See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(b)(2).
7
  Id.
8
  See id.

                                              3
removal context.9 Where a family law term is not defined or is ambiguous under the INA,

we look to relevant state law.10

       West Virginia law11 defines “parent” as an “individual defined as a parent, by law,

on the basis of biological relationship, presumed biological relationship, legal adoption or

other recognized grounds.”12 The West Virginia Supreme Court has held that, “[t]he

phrase ‘other recognized grounds’ refers to those individuals or entities who have been

formally accorded parental status or the functional equivalent thereof by way of statute or

judicial decree.”13 There is no evidence in this record to suggest that Sanchez-Escandon’s

wife has been formally accorded parental status by way of statute or judicial decree. The

BIA’s determination that “[o]ne parent will remain in the United States” is, therefore, an

error of law which we have jurisdiction to resolve.

       The record indicates that, besides his father, Sanchez-Escandon’s son has no other

immediate biological family in the United States.14 Removing Sanchez-Escandon,

consequently, leaves his son without a legal parent or guardian, creating a ward of the

state. The agency’s denial of relief ignores the fact that Sanchez-Escandon’s removal will

9
  The only other definition of “child” is found in 8 U.S.C.§ 1101(c)(1), which addresses
citizenship and naturalization.
10
   Bagot v. Ashcroft, 398 F.3d 252, 258-9 (3d Cir. 2005) (holding that “it is appropriate to
look to state law to define ‘legal custody’” because the INA did not define the term and
because “[l]egal relationships between parents and children are typically governed by
state law…”) (internal citations omitted).
11
   We apply West Virginia law because Sanchez-Escandon was living there before his
detention and his family remains there.
12
   W. Va. Code Ann. § 48-1-232 (West 2022).
13
   In re Clifford K., 619 S.E.2d 138, 151 (W. Va. 2005).
14
   Sanchez-Escandon has one brother, who is also an undocumented immigrant, living in
the United States. His wife testified that the family has no relationship with him.

                                             4
leave his 12-year-old son without the supervision or guidance of anyone who is legally

responsible for him. The BIA must consider whether this creates the kind of qualifying

hardship that should entitle Sanchez-Escandon to relief from removal. In addition, given

the son’s young age, it is difficult for us to understand how an appropriate determination

could be made without considering all information that would bear on the circumstances

and welfare of the son, including any evidence of the strained relationship between the

son and his stepmother.

       Accordingly, we will remand to the BIA to consider the extent to which depriving

Sanchez-Escandon’s son of a legal guardian while entrusting him to someone with whom

he may have a contentious relationship qualifies as the kind of hardship that should

entitle Sanchez-Escandon to relief.

                                           III.

       For the reasons described above, we therefore grant the petition, vacate the BIA’s

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

                                             5