Blanco Contreras v. Bondi, 134 F.4th 12

Petitioners, Julio Benigno Blanco Contreras and Gloria Isabel Marmol Lopez, are Guatemalan nationals facing removal but seek cancellation of removal under INA § 240A(b)(1), based on hardship to their U.S. citizen children.
The Immigration Judge (IJ) found petitioners credible and eligible on all criteria except for failing to show "exceptional and extremely unusual hardship" to their children if removed.
Key evidence included personal and medical documentation, especially a 2018 psychological report diagnosing their son A.B.M. with major depression stemming from untreated childhood sexual abuse.
The IJ ignored the 2018 psychological report and found insufficient evidence of A.B.M.’s current mental health issues.
The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed, mentioning the 2018 report in passing but failing to engage with its findings and upholding the IJ's decision.
The First Circuit reviewed the BIA's decision for legal error, given allegations of the agency ignoring critical evidence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did removal meet the "exceptional and extremely unusual hardship" standard?	Removal would impose hardship beyond that normally expected, especially given son's untreated, serious mental health issues.	No sufficient evidence of exceptional hardship; children doing well overall, son never received treatment.	Remanded to BIA; BIA must consider the full record, including the 2018 psychological report.
Did the BIA commit legal error by ignoring key evidence?	BIA failed to consider or engage with the critical psychological report.	BIA reviewed all record evidence, including summary mention of the report.	Yes; BIA legally erred by not addressing substantial, contrary evidence.
Can the court review the agency's hardship determination?	Mixed questions of law and fact are reviewable per Wilkinson.	Such determinations are discretionary and largely unreviewable.	Reviewable under recent Supreme Court precedent as mixed questions of law and fact.
Are pure factual findings (i.e., on severity of medical condition) reviewable?	Should be if based on legal error (e.g., failure to consider key evidence).	Such fact-finding remains unreviewable by statute.	Pure fact-finding (if untainted by legal error) remains unreviewable, but legal errors are reviewable.

Wilkinson v. Garland, 601 U.S. 209 (2024) (applying the hardship standard is a mixed question of law and fact and therefore reviewable)
Patel v. Garland, 596 U.S. 328 (2022) (court lacks jurisdiction to review discretionary factual findings in removal relief cases)
Guerrero-Lasprilla v. Barr, 589 U.S. 221 (2020) (mixed questions of law and fact are reviewable as questions of law)
In re Monreal-Aguinaga, 23 I. & N. Dec. 56 (BIA 2001) (sets the high threshold and context for the hardship standard in cancellation cases)