Immigration – Hardship

Listen to this article

Where a petition for cancellation of removal was denied based on an immigration judge’s finding that the petitioner did not show that her U.S. citizen children would suffer exceptional and extremely unusual hardship upon her removal, a decision by Board of Immigrations Appeals affirming the denial should be upheld because there was no error in the BIA’s conclusion that the petitioner failed to satisfy the hardship standard.

“Glendy Marleny Lopez Cano (‘Lopez Cano’), a native and citizen of Guatemala, sought cancellation of removal, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (‘CAT’). An immigration judge (‘IJ’) denied her applications. The Board of Immigration Appeals (‘BIA’ and, together with the IJ, the ‘agency’) affirmed that decision on all grounds. First, the BIA found that Lopez Cano’s petition for cancellation of removal failed because she did not show that her U.S. citizen children would suffer exceptional and extremely unusual hardship upon her removal. The BIA held, too, that her withholding of removal petition lacked merit because Lopez Cano did not show the requisite nexus between her past and feared future harm and a statutorily protected ground. And finally, the BIA considered Lopez Cano’s CAT claim waived because she failed to properly challenge the IJ’s ruling on that score. Lopez Cano now petitions us for review. Because we discern no error, we deny her petition. …

“Before the IJ, Lopez Cano recounted the circumstances that led her to immigrate to the United States. Before exiting Guatemala, Lopez Cano worked at a meat shop owned by her father. She described receiving death threats from people she claims were jealous of her father’s success in business and who sought to extort the business. … In her application for withholding of removal, Lopez Cano claimed that the threats were on account of a statutorily protected ground because they were based on her relationship with her father, and she maintained that ‘the Lopez family’ constituted ‘a particular social group’ within the meaning of the relevant statute. 8 U.S.C. §1231(b)(3)(A). …

“… One of her children, Tommy, suffers from anxiety, which causes him to bite his nails. Tommy had been attending psychotherapy sessions on a weekly basis at the time of the hearing. Lopez Cano testified that she would not be able to afford the mental health treatment Tommy needs in Guatemala. …

“Lopez Cano challenges the denial of her application for cancellation of removal on two grounds. First, as far as we can glean, Lopez Cano challenges the agency’s weighing of the facts in concluding that she did not satisfy the hardship standard. She contends that the agency failed to give adequate weight to Tommy’s ‘hardship of not having his mother’s care and presence in the USA.’ Second, she argues that the agency committed legal error by not properly analyzing required hardship factors articulated in In re Matter of Monreal-Aguinaga, 23 I. & N. Dec. 56 (BIA 2001) (henceforth, ‘Monreal’) and In re Matter of Gonzalez Recinas, 23 I. & N. Dec. 467 (BIA 2002) (hereafter, ‘Recinas’). …

“Accepting the agency’s factual findings as they are, and affording deference to the agency, we discern no error in the BIA’s conclusion that Lopez Cano failed to satisfy the hardship standard. The BIA accepted the IJ’s finding that Tommy suffers from anxiety but, like the IJ, found no basis for concluding that the hardship to Tommy, or the cumulative hardship to Lopez Cano’s three children, would be exceptional and extremely unusual. In making that determination, the BIA emphasized the scanty evidence in the record concerning Tommy’s anxiety, which manifested in nail-biting. The BIA pointed out that Lopez Cano did not make clear whether her children would accompany her to Guatemala and, if so, whether Tommy’s anxiety could be treated there. The BIA stated that, without evidence on those matters, ‘the record does not establish that [Tommy’s] health issues are so serious that they rise to the level of exceptional and extremely unusual hardship.’ … In addition, the BIA noted that Lopez Cano’s ‘two younger children are healthy and have no problems in school.’ Based on this state of the record, the BIA observed that Lopez Cano failed to show that the difficulty for her children, including Tommy, would be ‘substantially beyond the ordinary hardship that would be expected when a close family member leaves the country.’ Monreal, 23 I. & N. Dec. at 62. We discern no error in that assessment. To the extent Lopez Cano challenges the IJ and BIA’s factual findings, we lack jurisdiction to review that argument. …

“For these reasons, we reject Lopez Cano’s challenge to the BIA’s decision to deny cancellation of removal. …

“Next, we consider Lopez Cano’s challenge to the BIA’s denial of her application for withholding of removal. …

“The BIA held that Lopez Cano did not meet the nexus requirement because she did not show her membership in her family was the reason she and her father were (or would be) targeted. Before us, Lopez Cano only challenges the BIA’s determination that she failed to ‘establish a well-founded fear of persecution on account of her’ membership in the Lopez family. In particular, as far as we can tell, Lopez Cano contends that the evidence in the record compels the opposite conclusion. Not so.

“Nothing in the record compels the conclusion that Lopez Cano’s family will be a central reason Guatemalan criminal gangs would target her. Rather, Lopez Cano’s own testimony supports the agency’s no-nexus finding. … Accordingly, the BIA’s denial of withholding of removal to Lopez Cano is supported by substantial evidence in the record.”

Lopez Cano v. Bondi (Lawyers Weekly No. 01-182-25) (19 pages) (Gelpí, J.) Robert M. Warren for the petitioner; Aaron D. Nelson, with whom Brian Boynton and Corey L. Farrell were on brief, for the respondent (Docket No. 22-1941) (Aug. 28, 2025).

Click here to read the full text of the opinion.