Mario Mateo-Diego v. Attorney General United States, 20-3054

Petitioner Mario Enrique Mateo-Diego, a Guatemalan national, applied for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1); the IJ denied relief and the BIA affirmed.
Mateo-Diego sought to have his wife (the principal witness) testify telephonically at his merits hearing; she could not appear in person because the family was in a COVID-era shelter.
The IJ denied telephonic testimony but offered a continuance; Mateo-Diego elected to proceed and relied on his testimony plus his wife’s written affidavit.
The IJ found, among other things, that the wife had previously separated from him, her diabetes did not prevent work, and the daughter could continue eczema treatment via Medicaid—facts the IJ used to reject "exceptional and extremely unusual hardship."
The BIA reviewed and affirmed; Mateo-Diego petitioned for review arguing (1) a procedural due process violation from denial of telephonic testimony and (2) that the BIA applied the wrong legal standard in reviewing the hardship determination.
The Third Circuit denied the petition, holding no due process violation (no prejudice) and that the BIA applied the correct standard of review.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether denying telephonic testimony violated due process	Mateo-Diego: refusal prevented presentation of principal witness and caused prejudice	Government/IJ: witness could not appear; continuance offered; affidavit admitted and considered	No due process violation — petitioner failed to show prejudice or that outcome could be affected
Whether BIA applied correct standard reviewing hardship	Mateo-Diego: BIA engaged in de novo fact-finding when it noted likely emotional/financial effects	BIA/IJ: facts the IJ found (including implicit predictive findings) were reviewed for clear error and then the hardship legal question de novo	BIA applied proper standard (clear-error for facts; de novo for legal hardship conclusion)
Jurisdiction to review discretionary determinations	Mateo-Diego: challenges agency weighing of hardship evidence	Government: discretionary relief decisions are not reviewable except for legal or constitutional errors	Court: lacks jurisdiction to review discretionary weighing; retained jurisdiction only for legal/constitutional errors

Fadiga v. Att’y Gen., 488 F.3d 142 (3d Cir. 2007) (due-process test requires prevention from reasonably presenting case and substantial prejudice)
Serrano-Alberto v. Att’y Gen., 859 F.3d 208 (3d Cir. 2017) (to show prejudice, procedural error must have potential to affect outcome)
Romanishyn v. Att’y Gen., 455 F.3d 175 (3d Cir. 2006) (no prejudice where IJ considered witnesses’ affidavits despite denying live testimony)
Singh v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 533 (3d Cir. 2006) (speculative or generalized assertions that live testimony would help insufficient to show prejudice)
Kaplun v. Att’y Gen., 602 F.3d 260 (3d Cir. 2010) (BIA reviews IJ factual findings for clear error and reviews de novo whether those facts amount to exceptional and extremely unusual hardship)
Pareja v. Att’y Gen., 615 F.3d 180 (3d Cir. 2010) (appellate courts may review constitutional or legal questions despite general bar on reviewing discretionary relief denials)
Hernandez-Morales v. Att’y Gen., 977 F.3d 247 (3d Cir. 2020) (courts lack jurisdiction to review agency’s discretionary balancing of evidence for relief)
Alimbaev v. Att’y Gen., 872 F.3d 188 (3d Cir. 2017) (courts retain jurisdiction to review whether BIA applied correct legal standard)