Miguel Ramirez-Garcia v. Merrick B. Garland, 20-4005

Petitioner Miguel Angel Ramirez-Garcia conceded removability and applied for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1). He must show removal would cause "exceptional and extremely unusual hardship" to his U.S.-born children.
Ramirez and his wife have three U.S.-born children (ages 14, 11, and 8 at hearing); the family would accompany Ramirez to Mexico if he were removed.
The children have no active medical problems; the 11-year-old had intestinal surgery as an infant but has had no further issues or follow-up care.
The children speak Spanish (and read/write English; some Spanish literacy), attend school in the U.S., and the record does not show they would be deprived of schooling in Mexico.
Ramirez has prior experience working in Mexican fields and has parents and siblings living in Mexico who could provide short-term housing/employment support.
The Immigration Judge (IJ) found Ramirez failed to prove the required hardship; the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) adopted and supplemented the IJ’s reasoning, and the Sixth Circuit denied Ramirez’s petition for review.

Issue	Ramirez's Argument	Government/BIA/IJ Argument	Held
Whether Ramirez proved "exceptional and extremely unusual hardship" to qualifying children to warrant cancellation of removal	Removal would cause medical, emotional, educational, cultural, and economic hardship to his children (including risk of recurrence of the 11-year-old’s intestinal issue), and those hardships aggregate to the required level	Children are healthy with no current medical needs; bilingual and able to adapt; Ramirez can work in Mexico; family support exists in Mexico; alleged hardships are common to many families and not "exceptional and extremely unusual"	Denied — BIA and IJ correctly found Ramirez failed to meet the hardship standard

Singh v. Rosen, 984 F.3d 1142 (6th Cir. 2021) (articulates hardship standard and discusses review/deference for BIA hardship determinations)
Zhao v. Holder, 569 F.3d 238 (6th Cir. 2009) (when BIA adopts and supplements IJ reasoning, combined opinion is basis for review)
Pereida v. Wilkinson, 141 S. Ct. 754 (2021) (burden of proof rests with noncitizen in removal proceedings)
Galicia Del Valle v. Holder, [citation="343 F. App'x 45"] (6th Cir. 2009) (lower standard of living alone does not satisfy "exceptional and extremely unusual" hardship)
Al-Najar v. Mukasey, 515 F.3d 708 (6th Cir. 2008) (issues not supported by record citations or law may be waived)
Ordonez-Cruz v. Holder, [citation="499 F. App'x 528"] (6th Cir. 2012) (family in home country can mitigate economic hardship claim)
Shafo v. Wilkinson, [citation="844 F. App'x 791"] (6th Cir. 2021) (exhaustion requirement: must raise specific issues to the BIA to preserve judicial review)