Evodio Rodriguez-Salas v. Merrick Garland, 849 F. App’x 582

Petitioner Evodio Rodriguez-Salas, a Mexican national, entered without inspection in 1997, was served an NTA in 2013, conceded removability in 2018, and sought cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1).
Cancellation requires ten years' presence, good moral character, no disqualifying convictions, and that removal would cause ‘‘exceptional and extremely unusual’’ hardship to a qualifying relative; IJ found the first two met but found issues with the last two.
The BIA adopted the hardship ground as dispositive and expressly declined to decide whether an Arkansas assault-on-a-family-member conviction disqualified petitioner.
Petitioner's two U.S. citizen children (ages 12 and 15 at hearing) were living in the U.S. with their mother and maternal grandmother; petitioner had not seen them for about a year and resumed support only two months before the hearing.
Petitioner argued the BIA misweighed and failed to aggregate hardship factors (including that his undocumented status hindered efforts to assert visitation/custody); the BIA found likely emotional and economic effects but concluded they were not ‘‘exceptional and extremely unusual’’.
The Sixth Circuit held it had jurisdiction to review the mixed question of law and fact (applying the hardship standard to settled facts) and denied the petition on the merits; an alternative voluntary-departure claim was unexhausted and not reviewed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the BIA erred in applying the "exceptional and extremely unusual" hardship standard to settled facts	BIA/IJ misweighed factors, failed to aggregate, overstated estrangement despite mother blocking visits, and ignored risks from petitioner’s undocumented status	BIA reasonably found hardships likely but not materially beyond ordinary parental relocation harms; children would remain in U.S. with mother/grandmother; petitioner could likely work in Mexico; prior lack of support undercuts claim	Sixth Circuit: Jurisdiction exists to review the mixed question; whether reviewed for clear error or substantial evidence, petitioner failed to show BIA erred — hardship standard not met; petition denied

Singh v. Rosen, 984 F.3d 1142 (6th Cir. 2021) (mixed question review of hardship standard and jurisdictional discussion)
Guerrero‑Lasprilla v. Barr, 140 S. Ct. 1062 (2020) (Supreme Court recognizing reviewability of mixed questions of law and fact)
Pereida v. Wilkinson, 141 S. Ct. 754 (2021) (elements for cancellation of removal articulated)
Khalili v. Holder, 557 F.3d 429 (6th Cir. 2009) (BIA decision is final agency determination; review of IJ limited to adopted reasoning)
Ettienne v. Holder, 659 F.3d 513 (6th Cir. 2011) (framework for distinguishing reviewable legal/mixed questions from unreviewable discretionary or factual findings)
Cuevas‑Nuno v. Barr, 969 F.3d 331 (6th Cir. 2020) (failure to exhaust administrative remedies bars judicial review)