Valerdi v. Holder, Jr., 581 F. App'x 1

Valerdi, a Mexican citizen, entered the U.S. circa May 15, 1999, without admission or parole.
She was placed in removal proceedings and sought cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b).
An IJ denied cancellation and later denied her motion to reconsider and reopen; the BIA affirmed the denial.
Valerdi is married (separated) with four children: oldest is Mexican, the other three are U.S. citizens.
Her youngest child has asthma (diagnosed 2008) and eye problems (diagnosed 2011).
Valerdi's asylum application was withdrawn with prejudice; she timely challenged the BIA’s denial of reconsideration/reopening.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the court has jurisdiction to review the BIA's denial of reconsideration and reopen	Valerdi argues BIA abused its discretion.	Government contends § 1252 bars review of these discretionary decisions.	Lack of jurisdiction affirmed; review barred.
Whether new or previously unavailable evidence requires reopening	Valerdi identified medical evidence regarding her son.	Evidence was not new or previously unavailable.	No basis to reopen based on asserted evidence.
Whether the evidence in the motion to reconsider/reopen showed hardship to the son	Evidence demonstrates exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to his U.S. citizen son.	Even with evidence, hardship not proven.	Hardship not established; BIA's decision upheld.

Parvez v. Keisler, 506 F.3d 93 (1st Cir. 2007) (jurisdictional limits on reopening denial when no hardship)
Restrepo v. Holder, 676 F.3d 10 (1st Cir. 2012) (review of hardship related to cancellation of removal)
Kucana v. Holder, 558 U.S. 233 (2010) (reviewability of motions to reopen where underlying claim is reviewable)