Situ Wilkinson v. Attorney General United States, 131 F.4th 134

Situ Kamu Wilkinson, a Trinidad and Tobago native, overstayed his tourist visa in the U.S. after his passport was lost during a dismissed criminal case.
Wilkinson has lived in the U.S. for over 20 years and has a U.S. citizen son, "M.," who suffers from severe asthma and eczema.
M.'s mother, Kenyetta Watson, has primary custody; Wilkinson consistently provided both parental support and financial assistance.
Removal proceedings began after Wilkinson's 2019 arrest, which brought him to the attention of immigration authorities; charges related to the arrest were withdrawn.
Wilkinson sought cancellation of removal, arguing his removal would cause "exceptional and extremely unusual hardship" to his son.
The Immigration Judge (IJ) denied relief, finding the hardship did not meet the high statutory standard; the BIA affirmed, and the case was reviewed upon Supreme Court remand to clarify the standard of review.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Standard of review for "exceptional and extremely unusual hardship"	Review should be for abuse of discretion	Review should be for substantial evidence	Standard is substantial evidence, not abuse of discretion
Hardship to qualifying relative (son) sufficient for relief	Son's medical, emotional, financial harm is enough	Harm is not "exceptional and extremely unusual"	Substantial evidence supports IJ's finding that hardship does not qualify
Weight of emotional/behavioral issues without professional diagnosis	Testimony alone is sufficient to show hardship	Lack of expert diagnosis is fatal to hardship claim	Absence of professional evidence means hardship evidence is insufficient
Weight of financial and family disruption	Loss of income and care creates qualifying hardship	Financial/emotional losses are typical, not unusual	Financial/emotional impact not enough under statutory standard

Guerrero-Lasprilla v. Barr, 589 U.S. 221 (2020) (mixed questions of law and fact are reviewable under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D)).
Monasky v. Taglieri, 589 U.S. 68 (2020) (clear-error review governs primarily factual mixed determinations).
U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass'n v. Village at Lakeridge, LLC, 583 U.S. 387 (2018) (deferential clear-error review for mixed questions with factual foundations).
Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n of U.S. v. State Farm, 463 U.S. 29 (1983) (explains arbitrary-and-capricious review focuses on process not factual determinations).
Highmark Inc. v. Allcare Health Mgmt. Sys., Inc., 572 U.S. 559 (2014) (differentiates standards for law, fact, and discretion).