Reyes Rodriguez — Fifth Circuit denied review of cancellation-of-removal hardship ruling

Unreported / Non-Citable

Background

Jose Angel Reyes Rodriguez, a native and citizen of Mexico, sought cancellation of removal. He argued that removing him would cause exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to his wife and children, particularly a son who has attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and requires special services.

An immigration judge denied the application, and the Board of Immigration Appeals upheld that decision. Reyes Rodriguez petitioned the Fifth Circuit for review, challenging the agency’s assessment of the hardship evidence and asserting that the agency failed to consider that evidence cumulatively.

The Court’s Holding

The Fifth Circuit denied the petition for review. Under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i), the court lacked jurisdiction to review the factual findings underlying the agency’s hardship determination. Although whether established facts meet the exceptional-and-extremely-unusual-hardship standard is a reviewable mixed question of fact and law under § 1252(a)(2)(D), the court concluded that Reyes Rodriguez’s arguments principally challenged unreviewable factual findings.

To the extent Reyes Rodriguez argued that the established facts legally satisfied the hardship standard, the court found that argument unpersuasive. The court also concluded that the record contradicted his claim that the agency failed to consider the hardship evidence in the aggregate.

Key Takeaways

• Federal appellate courts lack jurisdiction to revisit the factual findings underlying an agency’s cancellation-of-removal hardship determination.
• Whether established facts meet the exceptional-and-extremely-unusual-hardship standard remains a reviewable mixed question of fact and law.
• The Fifth Circuit found neither a legally sufficient showing of qualifying hardship nor support for the claim that the agency failed to assess the evidence cumulatively.

Why It Matters

The decision underscores the importance of separating reviewable legal questions from unreviewable disputes over the agency’s factual findings in cancellation-of-removal cases. Characterizing disagreement with the agency’s weighing or interpretation of evidence as a legal challenge will not create appellate jurisdiction.

Applicants must therefore establish a legal error based on the facts as found by the agency or demonstrate from the record that the agency failed to apply the governing standard, rather than merely asking the court to reassess hardship evidence.