Avtar Singh v. Jeffrey Rosen, 984 F.3d 1142

Petitioner Avtar Singh is an Indian national who entered the U.S. in 1991 and has remained without lawful status; he has two U.S.-citizen children (born 2011 and 2013) and a lawful‑permanent‑resident mother.
The government served a defective Notice to Appear (NTA) on Oct. 30, 2009 (no date/time); a second notice on Nov. 17, 2009 set the hearing date.
Singh conceded removability and applied for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1), asserting that removal would cause “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” to his children and mother (health, education, financial concerns).
The IJ denied relief for (1) failure to prove a continuous ten‑year presence, and (2) failure to show the required extraordinary hardship; the BIA affirmed, applying circuit precedent that the second notice fixed the look‑back period and finding insufficient hardship proof.
Singh petitioned for review, arguing (A) the BIA misapplied the hardship standard and (B) the IJ was unconstitutionally biased by “correcting” the defective NTA; the Sixth Circuit held it has jurisdiction under Guerrero‑Lasprilla to review the hardship question but dismissed the bias claim for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Singh)	Defendant's Argument (Gov't/Respondent)	Held
Jurisdiction to review BIA’s hardship determination	BIA’s hardship decision is reviewable as a legal or mixed question	BIA’s hardship finding is discretionary and nonreviewable under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)	Court: Reviewable as a mixed question after Guerrero‑Lasprilla; §1252(a)(2)(D) permits review of questions of law and mixed questions
Merits — did Singh show "exceptional and extremely unusual hardship"?	Singh contends his children’s health and diminished educational opportunities, and his mother’s health and dependence, establish the required hardship	BIA: medical evidence and educational/financial proof insufficient; emotional hardship not beyond usual consequences of removal	Court: Affirms BIA — petitioner failed to show required hardship; factual findings (e.g., about education/health) are binding and insufficient to meet the legal standard
Due process / IJ bias from correcting defective NTA	Correcting the NTA converted the judge into a biased prosecutor; this is a constitutional claim reviewable in federal court	Gov't: claim was not raised before the BIA and thus is unexhausted; exhaustion required by 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1)	Court: Cannot reach merits — Singh failed to exhaust the specific due‑process/bias claim with the BIA; claim dismissed for lack of exhaustion

Guerrero‑Lasprilla v. Barr, 140 S. Ct. 1062 (2020) (mixed questions of law and fact are reviewable as "questions of law")
Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105 (2018) (defective NTA lacking time/date is not a valid service date for triggering certain statutory periods)
U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n ex rel. CWCapital Mgmt. LLC v. Vill. at Lakeridge, LLC, 138 S. Ct. 960 (2018) (describes differing standards for legal, factual, and mixed questions)
Monasky v. Taglieri, 140 S. Ct. 719 (2020) (mixed questions may warrant deference when they are fact‑intensive)
Garcia‑Romo v. Barr, 940 F.3d 192 (6th Cir. 2019) (holding a subsequent NTA that supplies the hearing date can fix the defective initial NTA for look‑back computation)
Galeano‑Romero v. Barr, 968 F.3d 1176 (10th Cir. 2020) (treated hardship determination as discretionary and nonreviewable)
Patel v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 971 F.3d 1258 (11th Cir. 2020) (en banc) (held hardship eligibility determinations are reviewable mixed questions)
Valenzuela‑Alcantar v. INS, 309 F.3d 946 (6th Cir. 2002) (discusses agency role as Attorney General’s designee and prior approach to hardship review)
Ross v. Blake, 136 S. Ct. 1850 (2016) (mandatory statutory exhaustion regimes foreclose judicially created exceptions)
Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81 (2006) (explains requirement of proper exhaustion of administrative remedies)