## Facts

- Francisco Javier Monreal-Aguinaga, a native and citizen of Mexico, entered the United States in 1980 at age 14 and remained without lawful status.
- He was placed in removal proceedings in 1998, conceded removability, and applied for nonpermanent resident cancellation of removal under INA § 240A(b); he alternatively sought voluntary departure.
- He had three children; the two older children lived in the United States and were U.S. citizens; the youngest was an infant.
- Shortly before the hearing, his wife voluntarily departed to Mexico with the infant.
- Monreal-Aguinaga worked long-term for his uncle’s company, supported the two older children in the United States, and sent money to his wife and infant in Mexico.
- His parents and seven siblings were lawful U.S. residents and were not financially dependent on him.
- The Immigration Judge denied cancellation of removal but granted voluntary departure; Monreal-Aguinaga appealed only the cancellation denial.

## Issues

1. How should “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” under INA § 240A(b)(1)(D) be interpreted, including its relationship to the former “extreme hardship” standard?
2. Under that standard, did Monreal-Aguinaga show that removal would cause exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to his U.S. citizen children?

## Decision

- The Board of Immigration Appeals, sitting en banc, dismissed the appeal and affirmed the denial of cancellation of removal.
- The Board held the statutory standard requires hardship to qualifying relatives that is substantially beyond what ordinarily results from removal, though not so severe as to be “unconscionable.”
- Applying that standard, the Board found the respondent’s children would face difficulties typical of a parent’s removal (financial strain, relocation or separation, educational and cultural adjustment) without additional aggravating circumstances.
- The Board concluded the record lacked evidence of serious medical issues, disabilities, or other special needs that would materially elevate the children’s hardship.

## Legal Principles

- “Exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” under INA § 240A(b)(1)(D) is a heightened standard: the qualifying relative’s hardship must be substantially beyond the ordinary consequences of removal, but need not reach an “unconscionable” level.
- Factors traditionally considered in “extreme hardship” analyses (family ties, age, health, financial impact, education, and country conditions) remain relevant, but the required degree of hardship is greater than in prior suspension of deportation cases.
- The statute limits the hardship inquiry to qualifying relatives (U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident spouse, parent, or child); hardship to the applicant is relevant only insofar as it affects a qualifying relative.
- Common results of removal—family separation, economic detriment, and adjustment to different language, culture, and schooling—generally do not satisfy the heightened standard without markedly aggravating circumstances.

## Conclusion

The BIA set a demanding interpretation of the “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” requirement for non-LPR cancellation of removal, requiring hardship to qualifying relatives substantially beyond ordinary removal consequences, and held that the respondent’s evidence regarding his U.S. citizen children did not meet that threshold.


In re Monreal-Aguinaga, 23 I. & N. Dec. 56 (B.I.A. 2001)