## Facts

- A Mexican citizen entered the United States in 1988 on a nonimmigrant visa and remained after her authorized stay; she resided continuously in the United States thereafter except for a brief 1992 trip.
- She was divorced, received no support from the children’s father, and was the sole caregiver and financial provider for six children.
- Four children were U.S. citizens who had never lived in Mexico and had limited Spanish ability; two older children were Mexican citizens.
- Her parents were lawful permanent residents, and her siblings were U.S. citizens; she had no immediate family remaining in Mexico.
- She operated a small car-inspection business but had limited overall financial resources and uncertain prospects if forced to relocate to Mexico.
- Removal proceedings were initiated based on the overstay, and she sought cancellation of removal for certain nonpermanent residents under INA § 240A(b)(1).

## Issues

1. Whether the respondent proved that her removal would result in “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” to qualifying relatives (her U.S.-citizen children and/or lawful permanent resident parents) as required by INA § 240A(b)(1)(D).
2. Whether, under a cumulative assessment of circumstances, the combination of sole parenthood, lack of family support in Mexico, children’s limited language/cultural ties to Mexico, and financial constraints satisfied the statutory hardship standard.

## Decision

- The Immigration Judge found the respondent met threshold statutory requirements (including continuous physical presence and good moral character) but denied relief for failure to show “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship.”
- The Board of Immigration Appeals, sitting en banc, sustained the appeal, reversed the denial, and granted cancellation of removal.
- The Board concluded that, on these facts, the respondent’s U.S.-citizen children would suffer hardship meeting the statutory standard if she were removed to Mexico.

## Legal Principles

- Cancellation of removal for nonpermanent residents under INA § 240A(b)(1) requires, among other elements, proof that removal would cause “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” to a qualifying U.S.-citizen or lawful permanent resident spouse, parent, or child.
- Hardship is evaluated based on the totality of the circumstances and the cumulative impact on qualifying relatives; no single factor is necessarily determinative.
- The statutory standard is more demanding than the former “extreme hardship” test, but it remains attainable in fact-specific cases where combined factors place the hardship substantially beyond that ordinarily expected from removal.
- Factors materially bearing on the hardship analysis may include: sole parental responsibility with no alternative caregiver, absence of family support in the country of removal, children’s limited language and cultural ties to that country, likely educational and social disruption, and financial instability when considered together.
- The absence of a realistic alternative means of obtaining lawful status can increase the severity and duration of the hardship for qualifying relatives.

## Conclusion

The Board granted non-LPR cancellation of removal because the respondent’s unique combination of circumstances—sole support for six children, no immediate family support in Mexico, U.S.-citizen children’s limited ties to Mexico, and constrained economic prospects—collectively established “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” to her qualifying children.


In re Gonzalez Recinas, 23 I. & N. Dec. 467 (B.I.A. 2002)