Iza-Pullataxig v. Sessions, 700 F. App'x 60

Petitioner Jose Iza-Pullataxig, an Ecuadorian national, sought cancellation of removal based on 10+ years of U.S. presence and hardship to his U.S. citizen son.
Immigration Judge (IJ) found petitioner met presence, good moral character, and conviction requirements but denied cancellation for failure to show "exceptional and extremely unusual hardship" to the son.
Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed the IJ’s denial on October 25, 2016; petitioner appealed to the Second Circuit.
Central evidentiary item: a psychological evaluation concluding the son faces high risk of psychiatric disorder, suicidal behavior risk, and developmental harm from separation or relocation to Ecuador.
The IJ’s written decision did not analyze or explicitly consider that psychological report.
The Second Circuit reviewed de novo whether the agency overlooked or mischaracterized facts material to the hardship determination and remanded.

Issue	Iza-Pullataxig's Argument	Sessions' Argument	Held
Whether the agency failed to consider key evidence relevant to "exceptional and extremely unusual hardship"	IJ and BIA overlooked the psychological report and evidence about diminished education/medical services for the son	Agency implicitly considered record and concluded hardship standard not met; no legal error for failing to cite each item	Court held the IJ appeared to overlook material evidence (the psychological report), raising a legal error requiring remand
Whether the court can review the hardship determination	Petitioner invoked review for overlooked/mischaracterized facts raising legal questions	Government asserted limited judicial review; hardship findings are largely discretionary	Court confirmed jurisdiction is limited to constitutional issues and questions of law but will review de novo when facts are overlooked or mischaracterized

Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524 (2d Cir. 2006) (court reviewed IJ and BIA decisions for completeness)
Barco-Sandoval v. Gonzales, 516 F.3d 35 (2d Cir. 2008) (limits on judicial review of discretionary immigration relief)
Mendez v. Holder, 566 F.3d 316 (2d Cir. 2009) (agency commits legal error when it totally overlooks facts important to hardship determination)
Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 471 F.3d 315 (2d Cir. 2006) (questions of law arise when agency mischaracterizes or overlooks material facts)
Pierre v. Gonzales, 502 F.3d 109 (2d Cir. 2007) (de novo review applied to legal questions arising from agency fact-errors)
Gonzales v. Thomas, 547 U.S. 183 (2006) (remand appropriate to allow agency additional investigation or explanation)