Galeano-Romero v. Barr, 968 F.3d 1176

Galeano-Romero entered the U.S. from Honduras as a child (2001) and thereafter resided unlawfully; arrested and indicted in Texas in 2016.
Removal proceedings were paused while he was tried; he was acquitted in state court in December 2018 and proceedings were re-calendared in 2019.
He married a U.S. citizen in 2017 and applied for cancellation of removal (8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)) in April 2019, asserting his wife would suffer "exceptional and extremely unusual" hardship if he were removed.
The IJ found hardship but concluded it did not meet the statutory "exceptional and extremely unusual" threshold; the Board affirmed that discretionary conclusion.
While his appeal was pending, Galeano-Romero moved to remand to the IJ to raise a Convention Against Torture (CAT) claim; the Board denied the motion for (1) waiver, (2) failure to show new, material, previously unavailable evidence under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1), and (3) failure to make a prima facie CAT showing.
This court dismissed the cancellation-of-removal challenge for lack of jurisdiction and denied review of the Board’s denial of the motion to remand for CAT relief (no abuse of discretion).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the court has jurisdiction to review the Board’s discretionary hardship denial under § 1229b(b)(1)	Galeano-Romero: Board misapplied its hardship precedent; under Guerrero-Lasprilla this is a reviewable question of law; also alleges a due-process violation	Government: Denial of cancellation is discretionary and barred from review by 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B); Guerrero-Lasprilla does not open review of discretionary factual applications; constitutional claim is not colorable	Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as to cancellation-of-removal claim; court cannot reweigh Board’s discretionary hardship determination
Whether the Board abused its discretion by denying the motion to remand to raise a CAT claim	Galeano-Romero: remand warranted because CAT claim was not considered by an IJ	Government/Board: motion to reopen/remand requires showing of material, previously unavailable evidence under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1); petitioner did not allege or show such evidence	Denied — Board did not abuse its discretion; petitioner failed to show new, material, previously unavailable evidence required to reopen/remand

Guerrero-Lasprilla v. Barr, 140 S. Ct. 1062 (2020) (supreme court decision clarifying scope of judicial review over agency decisions and distinguishing reviewable questions of law from discretionary factual determinations)
INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94 (1988) (establishes standards for motions to reopen and courts’ deference to the Board)
Arambula-Medina v. Holder, 572 F.3d 824 (10th Cir. 2009) (holds hardship determinations for cancellation are discretionary and generally not reviewable)
Morales Ventura v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1259 (10th Cir. 2003) (discusses absence of an algorithm for determining "exceptional and extremely unusual" hardship)
Alzainati v. Holder, 568 F.3d 844 (10th Cir. 2009) (explains lack of property or liberty interest in cancellation and scope of procedural due process)
Witjaksono v. Holder, 573 F.3d 968 (10th Cir. 2009) (standard of review for motions to reopen/remand: abuse of discretion)
Mena-Flores v. Holder, 776 F.3d 1152 (10th Cir. 2015) (addresses when counsel ineffectiveness may excuse failure to present evidence earlier)