Ocampo-Guaderrama v. Holder
501 F. App'x 795
10th Cir.2012Background
- Ocampo-Guaderrama is a Mexican national who entered the U.S. illegally in 1996 and has three U.S. citizen children.
- DHS charged him with removability in 2008 for being present without admission or parole.
- He sought cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1).
- The four statutory cancellation criteria require 10 years’ presence, good moral character, no disqualifying convictions, and hardship to a qualifying relative.
- The IJ denied, finding no exceptional hardship or good moral character; the BIA affirmed after de novo review.
- Petitioner petitions for review challenging the BIA’s legal standard for hardship and the IJ’s reliance on that standard; petition is denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the BIA’s hardship standard is reviewable as a legal question | Ocampo-Guaderrama argues the standard is vague and not defined | Respondent asserts the issue is a colorable legal question and within review | Colorable legal question; jurisdiction exists to review the standard. |
| Whether the BIA’s use of In re Monreal-Aguinaga is entitled to Chevron deference | Argues the standard may not be properly defined and should not be given deference | BIA standard is a permissible construction supported by legislative history | BIA’s interpretation is entitled to Chevron deference as a reasonable construction. |
| Whether the IJ/BIA correctly concluded lack of exceptional and extremely unusual hardship | Petitioner contends hardship to his children is substantially beyond ordinary hardship | Record shows hardship not substantially beyond ordinary hardship | Court defers to BIA’s determination under Chevron and upholds denial; moot regarding good moral character. |
Key Cases Cited
- Arambula-Medina v. Holder, 572 F.3d 824 (10th Cir. 2009) (jurisdictional bar on discretionary relief and reviewable questions of law)
- Diallo v. Gonzales, 447 F.3d 1274 (10th Cir. 2006) (constitutional claims or questions of law reviewable under 8 U.S.C. §1252(a)(2)(D))
- Pareja v. Att’y Gen., 615 F.3d 180 (3d Cir. 2010) (BIA hardship interpretation as a permissible construction)
- In re Monreal-Aguinaga, 23 I. & N. Dec. 56 (BIA 2001) (defines hardship as substantially beyond what is ordinarily expected)
- In re Andazola-Rivas, 23 I. & N. Dec. 319 (BIA 2002) (seminal interpretation of exceptional and extremely unusual hardship)
- In re Gonzalez Recinas, 23 I. & N. Dec. 467 (BIA 2002) (affirms Monreal-Aguinaga standard)