140 F.4th 35
2d Cir.2025Background
- Gladys Eudosia Toalombo Yanez, a citizen of Ecuador, entered the United States without inspection in 1999 and remained, raising three children (all U.S. citizens).
- In 2017, she was placed in removal proceedings, conceded removability, and applied for cancellation of removal—arguing that her deportation would cause “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” to her children, especially due to health concerns and country conditions in Ecuador.
- The Immigration Judge (IJ) denied her application, finding insufficient evidence that her children's hardship would be exceptional and extremely unusual, particularly regarding her youngest child's medical condition and access to care in Ecuador.
- The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed, finding no clear error or improper legal standard.
- Toalombo Yanez petitioned for review, contending: (1) the agency erred in its hardship finding; and (2) the BIA impermissibly retroactively applied a new legal standard from Matter of J-J-G-.
- During the appeal, the Supreme Court in Wilkinson v. Garland clarified the scope and standard of reviewing hardship determinations, affecting the jurisdictional and substantive arguments in this case.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction to review hardship determination | Court has jurisdiction post-Wilkinson | Initially, no jurisdiction; conceded jurisdiction after Wilkinson | Court has jurisdiction to review hardship determination |
| Standard for reviewing agency hardship determination | Should be de novo review | Should be highly deferential (substantial evidence) | Clear-error standard applies (more deferential than de novo, less than substantial evidence) |
| Merits of exceptional & extremely unusual hardship finding | Evidence shows child’s medical condition severe; Ecuador unsafe | Evidence does not show medical severity or inability to get care; general hardships are not enough | Agency did not clearly err; record does not meet the statutory hardship standard |
| Retroactive application of Matter of J-J-G- (BIA citation) | BIA imposed a new, higher standard retroactively | BIA properly cited J-J-G-; no new duty imposed, no retroactive effect | No impermissible retroactive application; BIA did not apply a new legal standard |
Key Cases Cited
- Wilkinson v. Garland, 601 U.S. 209 (2024) (holding that application of the “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” standard is a mixed question of law and fact, and is judicially reviewable)
- Monasky v. Taglieri, 589 U.S. 68 (2020) (habitual-residence determination under Hague Convention is a fact-intensive, mixed question reviewed for clear error)
- U.S. Bank N.A. v. Village at Lakeridge, LLC, 583 U.S. 387 (2018) (determination of arm’s-length transaction is a mixed question subject to clear-error review)
- United States v. U.S. Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364 (1948) (defining clear-error standard of review)