Alvarado v. Holder, Jr.
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 2790
| 1st Cir. | 2014Background
- Alvarado and Cardoza, Guatemalan nationals, entered the United States illegally in the mid-1990s and have lived in Rhode Island and Massachusetts for over fifteen years.
- They have two sons: Jorge (born 1993 in Guatemala) and Brian (born 1998 in the United States).
- They applied for asylum in 2008; asylum was denied and removal proceedings began.
- They sought cancellation of removal, arguing Brian would suffer exceptional and extremely unusual hardship if they returned to Guatemala.
- An IJ denied cancellation of removal after findings that Brian’s potential education needs and safety concerns did not amount to the required hardship.
- The BIA affirmed the IJ’s decision; petitioners sought review in this court, which denial in part and dismissal for want of jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court has jurisdiction to review discretionary relief | Alvarado argues for legal review of hardship determination and standard. | Holder contends discretionary relief review is generally unavailable, except for legal questions. | We lack jurisdiction to review the discretionary hardship determination; proceed to merits to the extent necessary. |
| Whether the IJ applied the 'exceptional and extremely unusual hardship' standard correctly for Brian's education | Alvarado contends Monreal-Aguinaga factors were not properly applied to giftedness and education needs. | Holder argues IJ followed Monreal-Aguinaga in considering factors; no error in standard application. | IJ did not misapply the standard; petitioners’ argument does not show legal error requiring reversal. |
| Whether the IJ properly considered hardships outside the classroom in aggregate | Alvarado asserts the IJ failed to weigh aggregate hardships (income, health insurance, separation, language) for Brian. | Holder contends the IJ did consider factors cumulatively and did weigh them in aggregate. | Hardship factors were considered in the aggregate; no jurisdiction to reweight factual findings. |
| Whether the petition raises a legal challenge to the hardship framework or merely a factual challenge | Alvarado argues the IJ misapplied legal standards (Monreal) to Brian’s situation. | Holder argues the challenge is primarily factual, and the court should not reweigh evidence. | The issues are effectively addressed as a merits question; petition denied on jurisdictional/merits basis. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ayeni v. Holder, 617 F.3d 67 (1st Cir. 2010) (limits judicial review of discretionary removal relief to constitutional/legal questions)
- Toribio-Chavez v. Holder, 611 F.3d 57 (1st Cir. 2010) (restricts review of hardship determinations under cancellation of removal)
- Matter of Monreal-Aguinaga, 23 I. & N. Dec. 56 (BIA 2001) (outlines factors for exceptional and extremely unusual hardship, including education needs)
- Matter of Gonzalez Recinas, 23 I. & N. Dec. 467 (BIA 2002) (factors guiding hardship analysis in cancellation of removal)
- Parvez v. Keisler, 506 F.3d 93 (1st Cir. 2007) (distinguishes factual from legal review in asylum/ removal context)
- Castro v. Holder, 727 F.3d 125 (1st Cir. 2013) (discusses limits on reviewing protective weight given to harms)
- Elysee v. Gonzales, 437 F.3d 221 (1st Cir. 2006) (no jurisdiction to evaluate the weight given to certain hardships)
- Hasan v. Holder, 673 F.3d 26 (1st Cir. 2012) (limits on reviewing the agency’s handling of hardship evidence)
- Royal Siam Corp. v. Chertoff, 484 F.3d 139 (1st Cir. 2007) (hypothetical jurisdiction avoidance in immigration cases when merits dictate outcome)