Abraham Contreras-Sanchez v. Merrick Garland, 20-4295

Background

Contreras entered the U.S. illegally in 2001, pleaded guilty to DWI and leaving the scene of a personal-injury accident, and conceded removability under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i).
He applied for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1); the IJ found he met all statutory requirements except the "exceptional and extremely unusual hardship" prong.
Contreras is married to an undocumented wife; they have five U.S.-citizen children (≈5–16 years). The family planned to relocate to live with relatives in Telixtac, Mexico if Contreras were removed.
Evidence included testimony from Contreras and family, and an expert declaration from Prof. Todd V. Fletcher about shortcomings in the Mexican education system; IJ gave the report limited weight.
The IJ denied cancellation, granted voluntary departure, and ordered removal; the BIA dismissed the appeal, concluding hardships (economic/educational, smaller housing, lower wages) were not "exceptional and extremely unusual."
On appeal, the Sixth Circuit dismissed challenges to factual findings for lack of jurisdiction and denied the remainder of the petition on the merits.

Issues

Issue	Contreras' Argument	Government/BIA Argument	Held
Jurisdiction to review factual findings supporting hardship	IJ and BIA erred factually (e.g., children do not speak Spanish); these errors should be reviewed	Factual determinations are not reviewable under § 1252(a)(2)(B) for discretionary cancellation	Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as to factual challenges
Whether BIA/IJ misapplied precedents on "exceptional and extremely unusual hardship" by imposing a bright-line rule excluding diminished educational/economic opportunities	BIA applied a rule that economic/educational harms short of destitution cannot qualify and failed to consider cumulative hardship	BIA/IJ considered factors cumulatively (education, housing, wages, family support) and reasonably concluded hardships were not extraordinary	Denied — BIA/IJ did not misapply precedent and decision was reasonable
Comparison to In re Gonzalez Recinas and other BIA precedents	Recinas is directly on point; BIA misstated facts and failed to treat number/language deficits of children as worse here	BIA relied on relevant differences (family support, spousal support, children's Spanish ability) and correctly compared cases	Denied — BIA's comparative reasoning was reasonable
Whether moving the children is a "choice" (i.e., mother could remain and children stay)	Leaving children in U.S. with undocumented mother is infeasible; moving is not a voluntary choice	No removal proceedings against mother; BIA/IJ should not speculate about her removal; decision whether children stay is a family choice	Denied — BIA/IJ properly treated relocation as a choice and declined to assume mother's removal

Key Cases Cited

Guerrero-Lasprilla v. Barr, 140 S. Ct. 1062 (2020) ("questions of law" include application of legal standard to undisputed facts)
Singh v. Rosen, 984 F.3d 1142 (6th Cir. 2021) (reviewability of mixed question re: hardship and standards of deference)
Aburto-Rocha v. Mukasey, 535 F.3d 500 (6th Cir. 2008) (agency failure to follow its precedent is non-discretionary error)
Bi Qing Zheng v. Lynch, 819 F.3d 287 (6th Cir. 2016) (review both IJ and BIA where BIA adopts and supplements IJ decision)
Kisor v. Wilkie, 139 S. Ct. 2400 (2019) (framework for deference to agency interpretations of their own rules discussed)
United States v. Riccardi, 989 F.3d 476 (6th Cir. 2021) (discussion of Auer/Kisor deference issues)