523 F. App'x 366
6th Cir.2013Background
- Ahmad, a Pakistani national, entered the United States in 1990 and did not maintain student status or complete his PhD.
- He ran a small store and restaurant with his wife; they had a US citizen son born in Cincinnati in 2002.
- Ahmad conceded removability under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(C)(i) and sought cancellation of removal.
- At IJ and BIA hearings, Ahmad testified removal would affect his US citizen son, citing concerns about Pakistan but with limited corroboration of hardship.
- The IJ denied relief, stating no exceptional and extremely unusual hardship, while acknowledging adverse country conditions in Pakistan but deeming them insufficient without corroboration.
- The BIA affirmed, adopting the IJ’s reasoning and citing Matter of Monreal to hold that adverse conditions alone generally do not establish hardship.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the BIA properly applied the hardship standard | Ahmad argued adverse conditions alone can meet the standard | BIA followed Monreal and held conditions alone insufficient | BIA reasonably applied precedent; hardship not shown |
| Whether the reviewing court has jurisdiction to assess the agency’s use of its own precedent | Ahmad asserts legal questions about precedent are reviewable | BIA’s interpretation of its own precedent deserves deference | Court has jurisdiction to review legal standards and agency interpretation |
| Whether the record supports exceptional and extremely unusual hardship | Ahmad contends his son’s circumstances create hardship beyond the norm | Record lacks corroboration of unique hardship factors | Record insufficient to show exceptional and extremely unusual hardship |
Key Cases Cited
- Matter of Monreal, 23 I. & N. Dec. 56 (BIA 2007) (adverse conditions generally insufficient to prove hardship)
- Matter of Andazola-Rivas, 23 I. & N. Dec. 319 (BIA 2002) (adverse conditions are factors, not standalone grounds)
- Valenzuela Alcantar v. I.N.S., 309 F.3d 946 (6th Cir. 2002) (extreme hardship determination is discretionary with narrow exceptions)
- Ettienne v. Holder, 659 F.3d 513 (6th Cir. 2011) (jurisdiction to review questions of law in removal appeals)
- Aburto-Rocha v. Mukasey, 535 F.3d 500 (6th Cir. 2008) (review of BIA's reasonable interpretation of precedent)
- Sultana v. Holder, 350 F. App’x 59 (6th Cir. 2009) (Pakistan conditions and related hardship considerations)
- Akhtar v. Gonzales, 406 F.3d 399 (6th Cir. 2005) (conditions in asylum contexts and hardship considerations)