Tacuri-Tacuri v. Garland, 998 F.3d 466

Background

Petitioner Jose Nolberto Tacuri-Tacuri, an Ecuadorian who entered without inspection (2001), lives in Massachusetts with his wife and two U.S.-born children; primary employment in construction/roofing.
ICE initiated removal proceedings in 2018; Tacuri conceded removability and sought cancellation of removal and, alternatively, voluntary departure.
The IJ granted cancellation of removal, finding Tacuri’s removal would cause "exceptional and extremely unusual hardship" to his children—particularly his son J.T.C., whose asthma and behavioral decline after Tacuri’s detention were treated as compelling factors—and found other statutory requirements met.
The BIA reversed, reasoning J.T.C.'s asthma was largely stable and manageable, the children had strong school performance and activities, the family likely could retain insurance and care, and the wife’s employment plus Tacuri’s transferable skills undermined a finding of exceptional hardship.
The BIA remanded the voluntary-departure issue; the IJ later granted voluntary departure. Tacuri petitioned this Court; the Court granted a stay and reviewed the BIA decision.
The First Circuit avoided a pure jurisdictional ruling, addressed the merits, and concluded the BIA did not commit legal error in applying the hardship standard; the petition was denied in part and otherwise dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Jurisdiction to review BIA hardship determinations	Tacuri framed BIA errors as legal questions (misapplication of precedent) to secure review.	Government: factual hardship findings are discretionary and unreviewable under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i); only legal/constitutional claims are reviewable.	Court bypassed hard jurisdictional question, explained merits were straightforward; nonetheless reiterated that many factual-weight challenges are not reviewable and the petition was otherwise dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Whether the BIA applied the correct legal standard for "exceptional and extremely unusual hardship" (did it impose an unconscionability standard?)	Tacuri: BIA applied a higher-than-authorized standard, ignored controlling precedent, and selectively omitted record evidence (e.g., worsening asthma, hygiene issues, out-of-pocket costs).	Government: BIA cited proper precedent and reasonably weighed evidence; Tacuri merely disputes factual weight.	Court held BIA cited and applied governing precedent (e.g., Matter of Monreal principles); BIA did not impose an unconscionability standard and did not err as a matter of law.
Whether the BIA failed to address record evidence (e.g., child’s hygiene, medication costs, worsening condition)	Tacuri: BIA "cherry-picked" and failed to address key evidence showing exceptional hardship.	Government: Disagreement over evidentiary weight is not a legal error and therefore not reviewable.	Court: BIA addressed relevant factors (ages, health, economic impact) sufficiently; disputes about weight of evidence are factual and largely beyond appellate review.

Key Cases Cited

Alvarado v. Holder, 743 F.3d 271 (1st Cir. 2014) (explains limited jurisdiction to review BIA discretionary hardship determinations and distinguishes legal from factual claims)
Alvarado v. Whitaker, 914 F.3d 8 (1st Cir. 2019) (standard of review: de novo for legal questions; factual hardship determinations typically unreviewable)
Ayeni v. Holder, 617 F.3d 67 (1st Cir. 2010) (BIA not legally errant for imperfectly describing evidence; courts may not reweigh factual findings)
Castro v. Holder, 727 F.3d 125 (1st Cir. 2013) (illustrates limits on appellate review of BIA factual hardship assessments)
Royal Siam Corp. v. Chertoff, 484 F.3d 139 (1st Cir. 2007) (court may bypass statutory jurisdictional questions when merits resolution is straightforward)