ANDAZOLA
23 I. & N. Dec. 319 (2002)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The hardship faced by a deportable alien's United States citizen children, including lower economic conditions and diminished educational opportunities in the country of removal, does not rise to the level of 'exceptional and extremely unusual' hardship required for cancellation of removal unless it is substantially different from, or beyond, what would normally be expected from the deportation of an alien with close family members in the United States.
Facts:
- Martha Andazola-Rivas, a native and citizen of Mexico, entered the United States without inspection in 1985.
- She has two United States citizen children, aged 11 and 6, for whom she is the primary caregiver.
- Andazola-Rivas has maintained stable employment for four years with a company providing health insurance and a retirement plan.
- She owns a home, two vehicles, and has approximately $7,000 in savings.
- The children's father lives with the family and sometimes contributes financially, but Andazola-Rivas functions as a single mother.
- Andazola-Rivas has no family in Mexico to assist her, as her mother, siblings, aunts, and uncles all reside in the United States.
Procedural Posture:
- The respondent, Martha Andazola-Rivas, applied for cancellation of removal in an immigration court.
- An Immigration Judge, the trial-level adjudicator, found that the respondent's children would suffer the requisite hardship and granted her application for cancellation of removal on March 16, 2000.
- The Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), the government agency, appealed the Immigration Judge's decision to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), the highest administrative body for interpreting and applying immigration laws.
- The BIA held oral argument in the case on June 22, 2001.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the potential hardship to a deportable alien's U.S. citizen children, which includes diminished economic and educational opportunities in Mexico and the lack of family support for their single mother, meet the 'exceptional and extremely unusual hardship' standard required for cancellation of removal under section 240A(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act?
Opinions:
Majority - Hurwitz
No. The hardship the respondent's children would face does not meet the 'exceptional and extremely unusual' standard for cancellation of removal. To satisfy this standard, an applicant must demonstrate that removal would cause hardship to qualifying relatives that is 'substantially different from, or beyond, that which would normally be expected from the deportation of an alien with close family members here.' While the court acknowledged the children would face difficulties, including poorer economic conditions, diminished educational opportunities, and the lack of family support in Mexico, these hardships are common for individuals being removed to a less developed country. The court reasoned that factors like economic detriment alone are insufficient and that while education in Mexico might be inferior, the respondent failed to show her children would be deprived of all education. The court also considered her financial assets and the presence of the children's father as mitigating factors. Ultimately, the court concluded that the facts of this case were not meaningfully distinguishable from its precedent in Matter of Monreal and did not meet the very high bar set by Congress.
Dissenting - Espenoza
Yes. The majority fails to properly weigh the devastating and long-term impact that the loss of a U.S. education will have on these U.S. citizen children. By focusing on hardship to qualifying relatives, Congress intended for the analysis to center on the impact to stakeholders in U.S. society. Depriving U.S. citizen children of the education necessary to become self-sufficient and fully participating members of American society constitutes an exceptional hardship. The majority's conclusion effectively creates a categorical exclusion for Mexican nationals, which was not Congress's intent, and improperly substitutes its own factual findings for the Immigration Judge's detailed findings that the children's educational futures would be ruined.
Dissenting - Osuna
Yes. The majority incorrectly equates this case with Matter of Monreal when the facts are wholly distinguishable. Here, the respondent is a single mother with no family support system in Mexico, whereas the respondent in Monreal was rejoining his wife there. In a single-parent family, hardship on the parent directly translates into hardship for the children. The cumulative effect of the economic, educational, and emotional hardships, particularly for a single mother with limited job skills and no support network, rises to the level of exceptional and extremely unusual. The Immigration Judge, who was the primary fact-finder and applied an even higher 'unconscionable' standard, correctly found the respondent had met her burden, and his decision should not be reversed.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the extremely high threshold for 'exceptional and extremely unusual hardship' established in Matter of Monreal, making it significantly more difficult for applicants to obtain cancellation of removal. It clarifies that common consequences of removal, such as economic decline and reduced educational quality, will generally not suffice, even when aggregated and affecting a family with a single parent. The ruling suggests that only hardships qualitatively different from those typically faced by deportees' families, such as those related to severe medical conditions, will meet the standard. This precedent has a profound impact on immigration law, substantially narrowing the availability of this form of relief for long-term residents with U.S. citizen children, particularly those from developing nations.
