Gerardo Campos-Julio v. William P. Barr, 953 F.3d 550

Petitioner Gerardo Campos, a Mexican national, entered the U.S. in 2000 and was placed in removal proceedings in 2014; he conceded removability and applied for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1).
Cancellation requires 10 years continuous presence, good moral character, no disqualifying convictions, and that removal would cause "exceptional and extremely unusual hardship" to a qualifying relative; Campos’s qualifying relative was his 13‑year‑old daughter, Martha.
At the 2016 hearing the IJ found Campos met the first three statutory requirements but denied cancellation, concluding Campos failed to prove exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to Martha; the IJ also (erroneously) stated Martha had no mental‑health diagnosis.
On appeal the BIA agreed the IJ had erred about the diagnosis but held the error was harmless after reviewing the record and affirmed the denial of cancellation.
Campos separately moved to remand with additional evidence (a post‑decision nurse practitioner letter, prior medical records, and two articles); the BIA denied the motion as not presenting new or previously unavailable evidence.
The Eighth Circuit denied Campos’s petition for review, holding the BIA did not impermissibly factfind, did not err as a matter of law in its handling of hardship factors, and did not abuse its discretion in denying remand.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the BIA impermissibly engaged in factfinding by correcting an IJ factual finding and resolving the appeal without remanding	Campos: BIA violated 8 C.F.R. §1003.1(d)(3)(iv) by making factual determinations instead of remanding to the IJ	Government: BIA may determine IJ factual error and assess harmlessness on the existing record without remand	Held: BIA did not improperly factfind; harmless‑error appellate review of the IJ’s record was permissible
Whether the BIA committed legal error by failing to address or weigh specific hardship factors	Campos: BIA omitted consideration of certain hardship factors and thus committed reviewable legal error	Government: Weighing of hardship factors is discretionary and not reviewable as law	Held: Court lacks jurisdiction to reweigh discretionary hardship determinations; no reviewable legal error shown
Whether the BIA abused its discretion by denying Campos’s motion to remand for new evidence	Campos: New evidence (NP letter, medical records, articles) warranted remand to the IJ	Government: Evidence was not new or previously unavailable and would not likely change the result	Held: No abuse of discretion; evidence was not new or unavailable and remand not warranted

Kucana v. Holder, 558 U.S. 233 (U.S. 2010) (limits judicial review of discretionary BIA decisions and discusses reviewability/remand principles)
Rotinsulu v. Mukasey, 515 F.3d 68 (1st Cir. 2008) (BIA may weigh and evaluate evidence before the IJ; regulation not meant to unduly restrict review powers)
Nabulwala v. Gonzales, 481 F.3d 1115 (8th Cir. 2007) (distinguishing cases where further factfinding before the IJ is required)
Robles v. Barr, 940 F.3d 420 (8th Cir. 2019) (appellate review may identify IJ error and conclude it is harmless after reviewing the record)
Hernandez-Garcia v. Holder, 765 F.3d 815 (8th Cir. 2014) (applicants may not manufacture jurisdiction by recasting discretionary abuse‑of‑discretion arguments as legal questions)
Salas-Caballero v. Lynch, 786 F.3d 1077 (8th Cir. 2015) (weighing hardship factors is discretionary and not subject to judicial reweighing)
Solis v. Holder, 647 F.3d 831 (8th Cir. 2011) (discretionary nature of hardship determinations)
Alva-Arellano v. Lynch, 811 F.3d 1064 (8th Cir. 2016) (remand standard: denial reviewed for abuse of discretion; remand not warranted if evidence was available earlier)
Berte v. Ashcroft, 396 F.3d 993 (8th Cir. 2005) (BIA will remand only if new evidence would likely change the result)
Lee v. Holder, 765 F.3d 851 (8th Cir. 2014) (similar principles on new evidence and remand)