Cancellation of removal; 8 USC § 1229b(b)(1); Whether petitioner established that removal would result in “exceptional & extremely unusual hardship”; Whether the court should defer to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) on the legal meaning of exceptional & extremely unusual hardship; Loper Bright Enters v Raimondo; Immigration judge (IJ)

The court held that petitioner-Moctezuma-Reyes failed to establish a requirement necessary for cancellation of removal under § 1229b(b)(1)— that his removal would result in “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” to his two young sons (who are U.S. citizens). The IJ and the BIA rejected his application for cancellation of removal, finding that he did not satisfy the requirement that a petitioner establish that “‘removal would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to the alien’s spouse, parent, or child, who is a citizen of the United States or an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence.’” He argued that “his removal would result in ‘exceptional and extremely unusual hardship’ for his two youngest children who are American citizens” and are 14 and 7 years old. The court first considered whether it should “defer to the BIA on the legal meaning of ‘exceptional and extremely unusual hardship.’” Reviewing the Supreme Court’s decision in Loper Bright, the court concluded § “1229b(b)(1)(D)’s ‘exceptional and extremely unusual hardship’ standard does not qualify for this sort of deference.” It found that the statutory language does not vest “the BIA with discretion to determine the meaning” of this standard. Thus, the court “independently assess[ed]” the meaning. It determined “that ‘exceptional and extremely unusual hardship’ means hardship sustained by a deported alien’s qualifying relatives that’s significantly different from or greater than the hardship that a deported alien’s family normally experiences.” It noted that ordinary “deportations create hardship. But as compared to other deportations, many severe hardships resulting from deportation aren’t rare, but expected—like the loss of financial prospects, separation from loved ones, and reduced educational opportunities. In other words, this is a difficult burden for a petitioner to meet.” Turning to the issue of whether Moctezuma-Reyes met it, the court noted that “his sons aren’t without a support structure in” the U.S., and do not “have ‘compelling special needs in school.’” It denied his petition for review.