Alay v. Bondi: Clarifying “Individualized Assessment” and Evidence Review under the Exceptional-and-Extremely-Unusual-Hardship Standard

1. Introduction

On 16 July 2025 the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit issued its decision in Lesbia Asucena Alay v. Pamela Bondi, No. 24-1299. The petitioner, a Guatemalan national, sought judicial review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) order that had affirmed an Immigration Judge’s denial of her application for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1). The central statutory hurdle was the requirement that removal would impose “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” on a qualifying relative—in this case, Ms Alay’s two U.S.–citizen sons, A.L. and F.L.

Although the court ultimately denied the petition, its opinion is especially significant because it clarifies what constitutes a legally adequate “individualized assessment” of hardship and when alleged agency omissions amount to reversible legal error. Practitioners should note the court’s nuanced treatment of:

The permissible scope of evidence under § 1229b(b)(1)(D);
The threshold for showing that the agency “overlooked” material evidence;
The distinction between ordinary hardship and “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” in the context of family separation and economic loss.

2. Summary of the Judgment

The First Circuit reviewed both the Immigration Judge’s and the BIA’s decisions “as a unit.” It rejected two principal arguments advanced by the petitioner:

The agency allegedly failed to consider key evidence bearing on hardship;
The agency allegedly failed to conduct an individualized assessment tailored to the petitioner’s unique facts.

Applying de novo review to asserted legal errors, the court found that the agency:

Duly considered all evidence relevant to the hardship inquiry;
Provided a sufficiently individualized analysis even while referencing what typically accompanies a parent’s removal;
Correctly declined to credit hardship flowing from non-qualifying relatives or from factors untethered to the children’s well-being.

Consequently, the petition for review was denied.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited and Their Influence

Wilkinson v. Garland, 601 U.S. 209 (2024) – Recited for the basic structure of cancellation-of-removal analysis and the discretionary nature of relief once statutory eligibility is shown.
In re Monreal-Aguinaga, 23 I.&N. Dec. 56 (BIA 2001) – Provides the seminal formulation that hardship must be “substantially different from, or beyond, that which would normally be expected” when a parent is deported. The First Circuit repeatedly relied on this yardstick.
In re Garcia, 28 I.&N. Dec. 693 (BIA 2023) – Most recent BIA distillation of Monreal’s rule, reinforcing the “substantially beyond” threshold.
Tacuri-Tacuri v. Garland, 998 F.3d 466 (1st Cir. 2021) – Cited for the proposition that the hardship bar is “supposed to be hard to meet.”
Contreras v. Bondi, 134 F.4th 12 (1st Cir. 2025) – Establishes that failure to consider significant record evidence is a reviewable legal error.
Rosa v. Garland, 114 F.4th 1 (1st Cir. 2024) – Confirms that failure to apply binding precedent is also reviewable legal error.

These authorities collectively framed the court’s dual tasks: (1) confirm that the IJ/BIA deployed the correct legal yardstick; (2) ensure that the agency’s application of that yardstick to the facts was procedurally sound.

3.2 Legal Reasoning

The opinion is structured around two alleged legal errors, each analyzed through the lens of what constitutes “legal error” under Contreras and Rosa.

Alleged failure to consider material evidence
- Non-qualifying relatives & applicant-centric factors: The court held that evidence concerning hardship to non-qualifying relatives (e.g., Ms Alay’s daughter or mother-in-law) is legally irrelevant under § 1229b(b)(1)(D). Similarly, petitioner’s own residence length or health conditions matter only if concretely linked to hardship for qualifying relatives – a link not demonstrated here.
- Economic hardship evidence: The IJ addressed income loss and educational implications but permissibly concluded they were not “exceptional.” The court underscored that merely invoking economic disadvantage is insufficient; the record must support hardship far beyond ordinary parental removal consequences.
- Speculation about future adjustment: The agency recognized, but was not required to indulge, speculation regarding potential petitions once the children turn 21. The hardship finding already accounted for a possible ten-year parental absence.
Alleged lack of individualized assessment
- The court emphasized that an agency may compare a petitioner’s circumstances to the archetypal deportation scenario while still engaging in individualized analysis. Detailed fact-finding about the children’s schooling, aspirations, and emotional ties sufficed.
- A “comparative” overlay is not antithetical to “individualized” review; it is inherent in distinguishing ordinary from exceptional hardship.
- The opinion clarifies that references to canonical BIA platitudes (e.g., “separation is what is normally expected”) do not invalidate a decision so long as the agency first canvasses the specific record.

3.3 Impact on Future Litigation and Immigration Practice

Procedural Significance
Alay solidifies a two-step template for Circuit review of hardship denials:

Identify alleged legal errors (failure to consider evidence; failure to follow precedent; perfunctory analysis);
Ask whether the record shows actual omission or merely disagreement with agency weighing.

Substantive Significance

Sets a persuasive, if not binding, marker that loss of one parent’s income, attendance at private school, and ordinary emotional trauma—even when sympathetically portrayed—rarely cross the “exceptional and extremely unusual” threshold.
Signals that hardship theories premised on the applicant’s own future dangers abroad (without tying them to the child’s concrete suffering) will not carry the day.
Affirms that courts will not remand merely to invite the agency to speculate about future visa petitions once children attain majority.

Strategic Guidance for Practitioners

Document objective, child-specific consequences—medical conditions, educational disruptions with quantified harm, psychological diagnoses—rather than generalized emotional sorrow.
Tie applicant-centric hardships (health, residence duration, community service) directly to how they exacerbate a child’s condition (caregiving dependency, financial metrics, etc.).
Anticipate that evidence relating to non-qualifying relatives will receive little or no analytic weight; weave those facts into the children’s narrative only if causally linked.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

Cancellation of Removal (Non-LPR): A discretionary remedy allowing certain non-lawful-permanent-residents to remain in the U.S. if they meet four statutory criteria, including the stringent hardship test at issue.
Qualifying Relative: Under § 1229b(b)(1)(D), only a U.S.–citizen or LPR spouse, parent, or child. Hardship to other relatives is legally irrelevant.
Exceptional and Extremely Unusual Hardship: A standard higher than “extreme hardship” (used in some waiver contexts) but lower than “unconscionable.” It demands proof of hardship far beyond the inevitable emotional and economic difficulties of deportation.
Legal Error vs. Abuse of Discretion: The First Circuit may review legal questions (Was the correct standard applied? Was probative evidence ignored?), but not the agency’s ultimate discretionary weighing of properly considered facts.
Individualized Assessment: The obligation to analyze the applicant’s unique facts; however, courts allow the agency to reference generic baselines to explain why certain hardships are ordinary rather than exceptional.

5. Conclusion

Alay v. Bondi reinforces the rigor of the “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” benchmark and clarifies the contours of judicial review for alleged agency missteps. The First Circuit’s opinion teaches that:

Legal error requires a demonstrable agency failure—either ignoring material evidence or deviating from binding precedent;
Hardship evidence must focus laser-like on qualifying relatives and rise appreciably above the “ordinary” fallout of deportation;
An IJ/BIA may legitimately invoke comparative language drawn from precedents without sacrificing the individualized nature of its analysis.

Going forward, immigration advocates must marshal detailed, child-centric proof that paints a picture of hardship truly “substantially beyond” the norm, while agencies must ensure they articulate how each piece of evidence factors into their holistic hardship calculus.