Clarification of the "Exceptional and Extremely Unusual Hardship" Standard in Cancellation of Removal Proceedings

Introduction

Homero Trejo-Juarez v. Pamela Bondi, decided by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit on June 3, 2025, addresses the statutory requirement under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(D) that a noncitizen seeking cancellation of removal must show that their removal would cause “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” to a qualifying relative. Petitioner Homero Trejo-Juarez, a Mexican national who has lived in the United States unlawfully since 2006, asked the immigration judge (IJ) and then the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) to cancel his removal on hardship grounds for his two U.S. citizen sons—one of whom has documented mental health challenges. The IJ denied relief, finding that Trejo-Juarez failed to establish the requisite hardship, and the BIA affirmed. In this commentary, we analyze the court’s reasoning, the precedents relied upon, and the implications for future cancellation‐of‐removal cases.

Summary of the Judgment

The Fourth Circuit denied Trejo-Juarez’s petition for review. Key holdings include:

The IJ did not arbitrarily ignore material evidence regarding the son’s mental health or the availability of services in Mexico.
Under a deferential standard of mixed question review, the record did not show hardship “substantially exceed[ing] the ordinary hardship that would be expected when a close family member is removed” (Gonzalez-Galvan v. Garland, 6 F.4th 552 (4th Cir. 2021)).
Potential emotional effects on the elder son—who would relocate with his father—and expected educational or economic adjustments in Mexico are “ordinary” rather than “exceptional and extremely unusual” hardships (Moctezuma-Reyes v. Garland, 124 F.4th 416 (6th Cir. 2024)).

Analysis

Precedents Cited

8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1): Statute setting out eligibility criteria for cancellation of removal, including the hardship standard.
Wilkinson v. Garland, 601 U.S. 209 (2024): Nonreviewability of discretionary decisions except for legal questions and mixed questions of law and fact.
Cortes v. Garland, 105 F.4th 124 (4th Cir. 2024): Held that the hardship determination is a mixed question entitled to deference.
Gonzalez-Galvan v. Garland, 6 F.4th 552 (4th Cir. 2021): Defined the standard that “exceptional and extremely unusual” means substantially beyond normal consequences of removal.
Tassi v. Holder, 660 F.3d 710 (4th Cir. 2011): Duty of factfinder not to ignore unrebutted, legally significant evidence.
Moctezuma-Reyes v. Garland, 124 F.4th 416 (6th Cir. 2024): Reinforced that diminished educational opportunities alone do not satisfy the hardship threshold.
Cabrera v. Garland, 21 F.4th 878 (4th Cir. 2022): Review of BIA decisions adopting IJ reasoning.

Legal Reasoning

The Fourth Circuit framed relief as a discretionary decision by the IJ, subject only to limited review of legal and mixed questions (Wilkinson). The threshold hardship inquiry is statutory; the petitioner must prove that removal will impose exceptional and extremely unusual hardship on qualifying U.S. relatives. The court emphasized:

“Ordinary hardship”—such as expected educational adjustments, economic differences, or emotional distress from relocation—does not meet the heightened statutory standard (Gonzalez‐Galvan; Moctezuma‐Reyes).
Peticions to weigh evidence are inappropriate on appeal; appellate courts defer to the IJ’s factual findings when supported by record evidence (Cortes).
Because the IJ found that the children would relocate with petitioner, separation‐related hardship was not a necessary consequence; evidence of mental health issues alone, without evidence of exacerbation beyond normal relocation stress, was insufficient.

Impact

This decision underscores that applicants for cancellation of removal must present robust evidence showing hardship far beyond the run‐of‐the‐mill consequences of removal or relocation. Future applicants should consider:

Documenting how a qualifying relative’s condition (mental health, physical disability, etc.) would materially worsen in the receiving country.
Showing that relocation or separation is unavoidable—evidence of intent to keep the family together may limit claims of separation hardship.
Demonstrating lack of resources or support networks abroad, or direct evidence of danger or deprivation that cannot be ameliorated by relatives or community services.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Cancellation of Removal: A discretionary form of relief permitting certain noncitizens to remain in the U.S. if they meet statutory criteria.
Exceptional and Extremely Unusual Hardship: A heightened hardship standard requiring more than typical emotional, financial, or educational disruption.
Mixed Question of Law and Fact: A legal question that depends on underlying factual findings; reviewed with deference to the agency’s fact‐finding.
Deferential Review: Appellate courts do not reweigh evidence or reassess credibility; they uphold factual findings if supported by substantial evidence.
Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies: Must raise issues before the BIA to preserve them for judicial review under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d).

Conclusion

Homero Trejo-Juarez v. Bondi clarifies that mere diminution in educational or economic opportunities, or generalized mental health concerns, do not satisfy the “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” requirement for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1). Petitioners bear the burden of presenting evidence that separation or relocation consequences are truly extraordinary compared to the ordinary impact of removal. This precedent will guide immigration judges and litigants in structuring and evaluating hardship claims in future cancellation‐of‐removal proceedings.