## Facts

- The respondent, a native and citizen of Guatemala, was present in the United States without admission or parole and was placed in removal proceedings.
- He was found removable and applied for asylum, non-LPR cancellation of removal, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).
- The Immigration Judge (IJ) denied all relief; on appeal, the respondent challenged only the denials of cancellation of removal, withholding of removal, and CAT.
- The respondent sought cancellation of removal based on alleged “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” to qualifying relatives: five U.S.-citizen children and his lawful permanent resident mother.
- The family lived with the respondent’s mother; the respondent and the children’s mother paid her rent.
- The hardship claim relied substantially on health concerns: one child had hypothyroidism requiring ongoing medication; there was limited evidence that two other children had mental-health related issues; the respondent asserted his mother needed help attending medical appointments.
- Evidence and testimony indicated hypothyroidism medication could be obtained in Guatemala and that some free health care was available there.
- Evidence also indicated the respondent’s mother could use public transportation and had previously generated income by renting rooms in her home.
- The IJ concluded that the alleged medical, economic, and emotional difficulties, considered together, did not meet the statutory hardship threshold.

## Issues

1. Whether the respondent established “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” to qualifying relatives under INA § 240A(b)(1)(D).
2. What evidentiary showing is required when the hardship claim materially rests on a qualifying relative’s medical condition and the relative would accompany the respondent to the country of removal.
3. Whether the respondent met the burdens for withholding of removal and CAT protection.

## Decision

- The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissed the appeal and affirmed the IJ’s denial of cancellation of removal, withholding of removal, and CAT protection.
- The BIA held the respondent failed to show qualifying-relative hardship rising above the level typically associated with removal.
- As to medical-based hardship, the BIA held the respondent did not sufficiently establish either qualifying relatives’ serious medical conditions or the unavailability of adequate care in Guatemala.
- The BIA agreed the respondent did not meet the standards for withholding of removal or CAT protection on the record presented.

## Legal Principles

- “Exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” for non-LPR cancellation is assessed cumulatively, considering the totality of circumstances affecting qualifying relatives, and must exceed the common consequences of removal.
- When a hardship claim is based on the health of a qualifying relative who would accompany the applicant abroad, the applicant must show:
  - the relative has a serious medical condition; and
  - adequate medical care for that condition is not reasonably available in the country of removal.
- General economic and emotional impacts of removal, without well-supported severity beyond ordinary consequences, do not satisfy the cancellation hardship standard.
- The applicant bears the burden to support medical-based hardship with sufficiently detailed evidence, including information relevant to treatment needs and availability of adequate care in the country of removal.

## Conclusion

The BIA affirmed the denial of relief and clarified that medical-based hardship for non-LPR cancellation requires proof of a serious medical condition and, if the qualifying relative would relocate, proof that adequate treatment is not reasonably available in the country of removal; on the facts presented, the respondent did not satisfy that standard or the requirements for withholding or CAT.


Matter of J-J-G-, 27 I. & N. Dec. 808 (B.I.A. 2020)