Introduction

Blanco Contreras v. Bondi is a landmark First Circuit decision clarifying that, in cancellation-of-removal proceedings under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1), the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) must expressly consider all salient evidence—including psychological evaluations—when reviewing an Immigration Judge’s (IJ’s) hardship findings for clear error. The petitioners, Julio Benigno Blanco Contreras and his wife Gloria Isabel Marmol Lopez, natives of Guatemala, challenged the BIA’s affirmance of an IJ denial of their applications for cancellation of removal on the ground that the agency overlooked an expert mental‐health report concerning their son’s Major Depression. The court granted the petition, vacated the BIA’s order, and remanded for proper consideration of the child’s psychological evidence.

• Parties: Petitioners (Blanco Contreras & Lopez) vs. Respondent (Attorney General, Bondi).
• Procedural Posture: Petition for review of BIA decision affirming IJ denial of cancellation of removal (INA § 240A(b)(1)).
• Key Issue: Whether the BIA committed legal error by ignoring critical psychological evidence in its hardship analysis.

Summary of the Judgment

The First Circuit held that the BIA legally erred by failing to address important findings from a July 2018 psychological report assessing the mental health of petitioners’ U.S.-citizen son, A.B.M. Although the BIA mentioned the report cursorily, it did not reckon with the counselor’s conclusions that A.B.M. suffered from Major Depression, experienced significant impairment, and needed continued psychotherapeutic services. That omission—against the backdrop of an IJ finding that A.B.M. “does not suffer from any serious medical conditions”—demonstrated that the BIA “turned a blind eye” to salient facts and could not properly review the IJ’s hardship determination for clear error. The court granted review, vacated the BIA’s order, and remanded for the agency to engage fully with the psychological evidence.

Analysis

1. Precedents Cited

• 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1) (INA § 240A(b)(1)): Eligibility for cancellation of removal requires showing “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” to qualifying relatives.
• Wilkinson v. Garland, 601 U.S. 209 (2024): Held that hardship determinations are mixed questions of law and fact and thus reviewable under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D).
• Patel v. Garland, 596 U.S. 328 (2022): Clarified that factual findings in discretionary-relief proceedings are not subject to judicial review, but mixed questions remain reviewable.
• Guerrero-Lasprilla v. Barr, 589 U.S. 221 (2020): Defined mixed questions of law and fact as “questions of law” for jurisdictional purposes.
• In re Monreal-Aguinaga, 23 I. & N. Dec. 56 (BIA 2001): Described the “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” threshold and factors (age, health, circumstances).
• Aguilar-Escoto v. Garland, 59 F.4th 510 (1st Cir. 2023): Emphasized the BIA’s duty to appraise all relevant evidence and avoid “turn[ing] a blind eye to salient facts.”

2. Legal Reasoning

The court’s opinion proceeds in two steps:

1. Jurisdiction to Review Hardship Determinations: Under Wilkinson and related precedents, the court retains jurisdiction over mixed questions of law and fact—here, whether petitioners met the “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” standard.
2. BIA’s Legal Duty to Consider All Evidence: While the IJ’s factual determinations are reviewed for clear error, the BIA must explicitly address contrary or critical evidence when affirming those findings. The unexplained omission of significant portions of the 2018 psychological report rendered the BIA’s clear‐error review legally deficient.

3. Impact on Future Cases

Blanco Contreras v. Bondi establishes a critical procedural safeguard in cancellation‐of‐removal cases:

• The BIA must engage on the record with expert evaluations—medical, psychological, or other—offered to prove hardship. Failure to do so constitutes a legal error and warrants remand.
• Noncitizens can challenge BIA affirmances that overlook key evidence by framing the omission as a pure question of law under § 1252(a)(2)(D).
• This decision strengthens the jurisprudential consensus that the hardship inquiry, though demanding, demands full evidentiary consideration, particularly when vulnerable qualifying relatives (e.g., children with mental‐health conditions) are involved.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Cancellation of Removal (INA § 240A)

A discretionary form of relief allowing certain noncitizens to remain lawfully if they prove eligibility and “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” to U.S.-citizen or permanent-resident relatives.

Clear-Error Review

The standard by which a reviewing court defers to an agency’s factual findings unless the court “is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.”

Mixed Question of Law and Fact

A legal question that applies a statutory standard to established facts (here, applying the hardship standard to the undisputed record), and thus is reviewable under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D).

Salient Evidence

Evidence essential to a key finding—in this case, the counselor’s diagnoses and recommendations in the 2018 psychological report about the child’s Major Depression.

Conclusion

Blanco Contreras v. Bondi crystallizes an important due‐process principle in immigration adjudication: when a petitioner offers documentary or expert evidence bearing directly on a hardship element, the BIA must confront and analyze that evidence in its clear‐error review. Overlooking or ignoring key findings—especially those concerning a child’s mental health—undermines the integrity of the hardship inquiry and demands remand. This ruling not only secures rigorous evidentiary review but also reinforces the humanitarian purpose of cancellation‐of‐removal relief under the INA.