Clarifying the “Exceptional and Extremely Unusually Hardship” Standard Under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(D)

Introduction

In Hermosillo-Robles v. Bondi, 10th Cir. No. 24-9552 (June 4, 2025), the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming an immigration judge’s (IJ) denial of cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b). Petitioner Noe Hermosillo-Robles, a Mexican national residing in the U.S. since 2002 without authorization, sought relief on the ground that his removal would cause "exceptional and extremely unusual hardship" to his two U.S. citizen children. The Tenth Circuit was asked to determine whether the IJ and BIA erred in concluding that the hardships alleged did not exceed those normally expected from family separation by deportation.

Summary of the Judgment

Exercising jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, the Tenth Circuit:

• Confirmed that Hermosillo-Robles satisfied continuous physical presence, good moral character, and no disqualifying convictions.
• Applied a deferential standard of review to the IJ’s factual hardship determination.
• Held that the petitioner failed to show hardship “substantially different from, or beyond, that which would normally be expected” from the removal of a parent.
• Denied the petition for review, affirming the IJ’s decision as adopted by the BIA.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The court and BIA relied on a series of landmark decisions shaping the “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” standard:

• Monreal-Aguinaga, 23 I. & N. Dec. 56 (BIA 2001): Established that hardship must be “substantially different from, or beyond, that which would normally be expected.” Recognized factors such as age, health, and special needs, but held economic detriment alone insufficient.
• In re Andazola-Rivas, 23 I. & N. Dec. 319 (BIA 2002): Emphasized that separation of school-age children is common and insufficient by itself to satisfy the hardship threshold.
• In re Gonzalez Recinas, 23 I. & N. Dec. 467 (BIA 2002): Found exceptional hardship where a single mother of six had no familial support in Mexico, placing the case at the outer limit of the hardship spectrum.
• Martinez v. Garland, 98 F.4th 1018 (10th Cir. 2024): Reaffirmed the “deferential” review of IJ hardship determinations and upheld that economic and educational disadvantages alone do not meet the statutory standard.
• Wilkinson v. Garland, 601 U.S. 209 (2024): Clarified that hardship determinations involve mixed questions of law and fact, calling for a deferential review.

Legal Reasoning

The Tenth Circuit explained its approach in three steps:

1. Statutory Framework: Under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1), cancellation of removal for non-LPRs requires, inter alia, proof that removal “would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” to qualifying U.S. citizen relatives.
2. Deferential Review: Consistent with Wilkinson and Martinez, the court applies a deferential standard to the IJ’s mixed question of law and fact. Factual findings are reviewed for substantial support, and legal conclusions for abuse of discretion.
3. Application of the Hardship Standard: The IJ considered the children’s ages, health, emotional ties, schooling, and both parents’ financial support. He concluded these hardships did not exceed the ordinary consequences of deportation. The Tenth Circuit held that, under Monreal-Aguinaga and succeeding decisions, the petitioner’s claims of reduced standard of living, diminished educational opportunities, and potential emotional distress did not cross the high statutory threshold.

Impact

Hermosillo-Robles v. Bondi reaffirms and clarifies the rigorous nature of the “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” standard. It sends clear signals:

• Lower courts and immigration judges must continue to apply a stringent, aggregated analysis of hardship factors.
• Economic loss and reduced opportunities abroad, without more egregious circumstances (serious health concerns or lack of any support network), will not suffice.
• The presence of another parent or extended family in the United States significantly diminishes the likelihood of meeting the hardship threshold.
• Deportation relief applicants face a high bar under § 1229b(b), underscoring the need for compelling, individualized hardship evidence.

Complex Concepts Simplified

To aid understanding, key terms are explained below:

• Cancellation of Removal: A form of relief that allows certain non-permanent residents facing deportation to remain in the U.S. if they meet strict statutory criteria.
• Qualifying Relatives: U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident spouse, parent, or child whose hardship is considered in the petition.
• Exceptional and Extremely Unusual Hardship: A hardship that goes well beyond the ordinary emotional, financial, or social burdens typically resulting from deportation. Courts look for unique, severe impacts on health, safety, education, or familial support.
• Deferential Review: Appellate courts give weight to the IJ's and BIA’s factual findings and will not overturn them unless there is no reasonable basis in the record.

Conclusion

Hermosillo-Robles v. Bondi serves as an important reaffirmation of the high bar set by Congress for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(D). The Tenth Circuit’s decision underscores that neither economic hardship nor family separation alone constitutes “exceptional and extremely unusual” hardship. Future applicants must present extraordinarily compelling evidence—such as serious medical needs or a total absence of support networks—to satisfy the statutory standard. As persuasive authority, this ruling will guide IJs, the BIA, and other circuits in applying a consistent, rigorous analysis when evaluating hardship claims.