Rene Lopez-Portillo v. U.S. Attorney General, 24-10647

Rene Astul Lopez-Portillo, a native of El Salvador, was charged with removability for entering the U.S. without admission or parole and sought cancellation of removal on the grounds that it would cause exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to his U.S. citizen children.
The Immigration Judge (IJ) granted cancellation, finding the children faced significant emotional, financial, and language-based hardships if Lopez-Portillo were removed.
The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) reversed, concluding the hardships were insufficient and engaged in some factual reconsideration not made by the IJ.
Lopez-Portillo challenged the BIA’s fact-finding and legal standard in a motion to reconsider, which the BIA denied. On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit remanded for the BIA to properly address whether it had engaged in impermissible fact-finding and applied the correct review standard.
On remand, the BIA corrected some errors but still denied relief, prompting another petition to the Eleventh Circuit.
The Eleventh Circuit now reviews the BIA’s denial for abuse of discretion and finds that Lopez-Portillo’s children would face exceptional and extremely unusual hardship, granting the petition and remanding.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the BIA engaged in impermissible fact-finding contrary to the IJ’s findings	BIA overstepped by making its own factual determinations	BIA applied correct standard and any errors were not outcome-determinative	Court disagreed that BIA engaged in impermissible fact-finding impacting result
Whether removal would result in "exceptional and extremely unusual hardship" to Lopez-Portillo’s children	Hardships—language barrier, emotional distress, poverty risk—meet the high statutory threshold	Hardships cited are ordinary and not “exceptional and extremely unusual”	Court found hardship standard was met in this case
Proper standard for BIA review of IJ findings in cancellation of removal cases	BIA must defer to IJ fact-findings unless clearly erroneous	BIA can review de novo and apply its discretion	Court required deference to IJ’s factual findings; BIA must provide reasoned consideration
Adequacy of BIA’s reasoned consideration of Lopez-Portillo’s legal argument on reconsideration	BIA did not address new legal argument, failing to provide meaningful review	No new legal argument presented; BIA's decision should stand	Court found BIA abused its discretion by not addressing the new argument

Wilkinson v. Garland, 601 U.S. 209 (2024) (clarifies standard of judicial review for BIA hardship determinations in cancellation of removal cases)
Matter of Gonzalez Recinas, 23 I. & N. Dec. 467 (BIA 2001) (defines application of the "exceptional and extremely unusual hardship" standard and notes cases qualifying for such relief)
Matter of Monreal, 23 I. & N. Dec. 56 (BIA 2001) (interprets hardship standard and its narrow application)
Matter of Andazola, 23 I. & N. Dec. 319 (BIA 2002) (discusses parameters of qualifying hardship for cancellation of removal)