Servando Galvan v. Merrick Garland, 6 F.4th 552

Petitioner Servando Gonzalez Galvan, a Mexican national, entered the U.S. in 2003 and remained after his visa expired; he has four U.S.-citizen children.
He has DUI convictions in 2006 and 2019; DHS charged him with removability and he conceded removability.
He applied for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1), arguing removal would cause “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” to his U.S.-citizen children.
The IJ found Gonzalez Galvan met the presence, good moral character, and non-disqualification predicates but concluded as a matter of law the children would not suffer the heightened hardship required; the IJ credited testimony about increased anxiety and financial strain but deemed it ordinary deportation hardship.
The Board adopted the IJ’s reasoning; Gonzalez Galvan petitioned the Fourth Circuit. The court held the hardship standard is a mixed question of law and fact (thus reviewable) but affirmed the IJ’s conclusion that the record did not meet the heightened hardship standard.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether appellate courts have jurisdiction to review an IJ’s determination that removal would cause “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” under § 1229b(b)(1)(D)	Gonzalez Galvan: The hardship determination is a legal (or mixed) question — application of statutory standard to facts — and thus reviewable under § 1252(a)(2)(D)	Government: Hardship determination is part of the discretionary decision to grant cancellation of removal and therefore unreviewable under § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i)	The court held the hardship inquiry is a mixed question of law and fact and is reviewable under § 1252(a)(2)(D) (Guerrero‑Lasprilla governs)
Whether the IJ erred in concluding, as a matter of law, that petitioner failed to prove “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” to his children	Gonzalez Galvan: Evidence of children’s anxiety, Amy’s GAD/ADHD, increased family responsibilities, and financial strain establish the elevated hardship standard	Government/IJ: Evidence shows significant but ordinary deportation-related hardship; IJ applied the correct high legal standard and adequately considered the evidence	The court reviewed de novo the legal application, accepted IJ’s factual findings, and affirmed: the record did not meet the elevated “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” standard

Guerrero‑Lasprilla v. Barr, 140 S. Ct. 1062 (2020) (Supreme Court held that the "questions of law" exception includes mixed questions—application of legal standards to settled facts)
Singh v. Rosen, 984 F.3d 1142 (6th Cir. 2021) (hardship determination under § 1229b(b)(1)(D) is a mixed question reviewable after Guerrero‑Lasprilla)
Galeano‑Romero v. Barr, 968 F.3d 1176 (10th Cir. 2020) (concluded hardship determination is discretionary and not reviewable)
Hernandez‑Morales v. Attorney General, 977 F.3d 247 (3d Cir. 2020) (treated hardship weighing as discretionary and unreviewable)
Obioha v. Gonzales, 431 F.3d 400 (4th Cir. 2005) (noting courts lack jurisdiction to review the Board’s denial of discretionary cancellation of removal)
Martinez v. Holder, 740 F.3d 902 (4th Cir. 2014) (explaining that when the Board expressly adopts an IJ’s reasoning, the IJ’s opinion is reviewed as the final order)