152 F.4th 237
1st Cir.2025Background
- Glendy Marleny Lopez Cano, a Guatemalan national, sought relief from removal in the form of cancellation of removal, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).
- She alleged she was threatened due to her father's successful business, with claims of extortion and violence, and further expressed fear of gang-related violence upon return to Guatemala.
- In support of her cancellation claim, Lopez Cano focused on the potential psychological hardship to her U.S. citizen son, Tommy, who suffers from anxiety, arguing inadequate treatment would be available in Guatemala.
- The Immigration Judge (IJ) denied all relief, finding insufficient hardship for cancellation, lack of a protected ground nexus for withholding, and a lack of sufficient CAT evidence; the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed.
- Procedurally, Lopez Cano appealed to the First Circuit, challenging the analysis and conclusions related to each form of relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exceptional hardship for cancellation | Agency failed to weigh evidence of child's hardship properly | Sufficient evidence supports IJ and BIA | No error; hardship not exceptional |
| Proper legal analysis of hardship factors | BIA did not analyze all relevant hardship factors | Agency not required to consider every factor | No legal error in BIA's analysis |
| Nexus to protected ground for withholding | Family status was reason for harm; record compels opposite finding | Motive was extortion and general crime | No nexus; substantial evidence supports BIA |
| CAT claim waiver and merits | Failed to challenge BIA's waiver finding, scant briefing | Claim waived for failure to exhaust | Claim waived, not considered |
Key Cases Cited
- Chun Mendez v. Garland, 96 F.4th 58 (1st Cir. 2024) (restates the nexus requirement for withholding of removal)
- Sanchez-Vasquez v. Garland, 994 F.3d 40 (1st Cir. 2021) (explains the clear probability and nexus requirements for withholding)
- Pandit v. Lynch, 824 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2016) (describes typicality of psychological hardship upon removal of parent)
- Tacuri-Tacuri v. Garland, 998 F.3d 466 (1st Cir. 2021) (discusses the standard for "exceptional and extremely unusual hardship")