Tauqir Niazi v. Merrick B. Garland, 20-4270

Background

Taquir Niazi, a Pakistani national who overstayed a visitor visa, conceded removability and applied for cancellation of removal based on hardship to his U.S. citizen children.
By the time of the renewed proceedings he had three U.S. citizen daughters (ages 17, 14, and 8) and shared legal custody per a 2016 divorce; if deported the daughters would remain in the U.S. with their mother.
In December 2019 police arrested Niazi after his second daughter alleged he assaulted her; criminal charges were later dismissed after she recanted.
The second daughter has a history of counseling and alleged self-harm (Niazi testified she cuts herself); medical questionnaires in the record, however, contained answers denying behavioral or self-harm concerns.
The IJ denied cancellation, finding Niazi failed to show "exceptional and extremely unusual hardship" to any qualifying relative, emphasizing the absence of counseling records/opinions and that the children could remain in the U.S. with access to services.
The BIA adopted and affirmed the IJ, rejecting Niazi’s claim that the IJ failed to consider the daughters’ mental-health evidence; Niazi’s petition for review was denied by the Sixth Circuit.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Niazi)	Defendant's Argument (Government)	Held
Whether the IJ/BIA failed to consider the second daughter’s self-harming behavior and related evidence	The IJ and BIA did not specifically discuss the daughter’s self-harm and Niazi is uniquely able to dissuade her, so removal would cause exceptional hardship	The IJ and BIA considered the mental-health evidence and permissibly relied on lack of counseling records and contradictory medical questionnaires	Denied — court held the IJ and BIA sufficiently considered the evidence; they need not parse every argument in a point-by-point fashion and gave permissible reasons for rejecting the claim
Whether evidence shows only Niazi can prevent the daughter’s self-harm (unique role) such that removal is exceptionally burdensome	Only Niazi can dissuade his daughter from self-injury, so his removal would uniquely endanger her	No record support that only Niazi can help; daughter already moved to her mother and receives counseling; record contradictions undermine the claim	Denied — no evidence that Niazi is uniquely necessary or that removal would worsen her condition beyond ordinary deportation effects
Whether the BIA’s decision conflicts with alleged AAO precedent cited by Niazi	B-J-N- and C-M-Q- (AAO decisions) support relief where children have documented self-harm and corroborating medical evidence	Those AAO decisions are non‑precedential and, even on the merits, are distinguishable because they contained corroborating medical records and testimony absent here	Denied — AAO decisions lack precedential value and are distinguishable; no reversible error

Key Cases Cited

Guerrero-Lasprilla v. Barr, 140 S. Ct. 1062 (addresses reviewability of mixed questions of law and fact in cancellation hardship determinations)
Singh v. Rosen, 984 F.3d 1142 (6th Cir. 2021) (holds the BIA’s ultimate hardship conclusion is reviewable while factual findings are not)
Gonzalez-De Leon v. Barr, 932 F.3d 489 (6th Cir. 2019) (when BIA issues a separate opinion, courts review the BIA as the final agency determination)
Pereida v. Wilkinson, 141 S. Ct. 754 (2021) (addresses statutory eligibility elements for immigration relief)
Scorteanu v. INS, 339 F.3d 407 (6th Cir. 2003) (BIA is not required to refute every argument; must demonstrate it considered the issues)
Stserba v. Holder, 646 F.3d 964 (6th Cir. 2011) (BIA not required to parse or refute on the record every document or argument offered)