Wong v. Bondi, 23-6396

Petitioners Siew Voon Wong and Chun Yip Lam, natives of Malaysia, sought review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision denying their motion to reopen removal proceedings to apply for cancellation of removal.
The motion to reopen was made so the petitioners could seek cancellation of removal based on hardship to their U.S. citizen children.
The BIA considered the petitioners’ motion as a motion to reopen, not a motion to reconsider, since it sought new relief rather than pointing out errors in the prior decision.
The BIA denied the motion on the ground that petitioners failed to provide evidence supporting a prima facie case of “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” to their children.
Petitioners only submitted their children’s birth certificates and did not provide affidavits or documentation regarding potential hardship, health concerns, or country conditions in Malaysia.
The Second Circuit reviewed for abuse of discretion and denied the petition for review, finding no legal or constitutional error in the BIA’s decision.

Issue	Petitioners' Argument	Respondent's Argument	Held
Whether the BIA erred in construing the motion as a motion to reopen	Petitioners contended they sought reconsideration	BIA argued substance was for reopening, not reconsideration	Court agreed with BIA: it was properly construed as reopening
Whether petitioners established prima facie eligibility for cancellation of removal	Argued hardship to U.S. citizen children, referencing discrimination in Malaysia	Insufficient evidence submitted to show exceptional hardship	Court held petitioners failed to establish prima facie eligibility
Whether BIA applied the correct legal standard for "exceptional and extremely unusual hardship"	Asserted BIA imposed too high a burden post-Pereira	BIA contended standard consistently applied	Court found BIA applied the correct legal standard
Whether adverse decisions reflect agency bias	Suggested a pattern of agency bias in such cases	Denied bias, emphasizing need for extrajudicial evidence	Court found no evidence of bias or improper burden

Ke Zhen Zhao v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 265 F.3d 83 (2d Cir. 2001) (distinguishes motions to reconsider from motions to reopen)
INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94 (1988) (agency may deny reopening if no new, material evidence is submitted)
Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138 (2d Cir. 2008) (standard for prima facie eligibility in reopening)
Poradisova v. Gonzales, 420 F.3d 70 (2d Cir. 2005) (realistic chance required for showing prima facie eligibility)
In re Monreal-Aguinaga, 23 I. & N. Dec. 56 (BIA 2001) (defines "exceptional and extremely unusual hardship")
Barco-Sandoval v. Gonzales, 516 F.3d 35 (2d Cir. 2007) (review of application of incorrect legal standard)
Mendez v. Holder, 566 F.3d 316 (2d Cir. 2009) (error to mischaracterize important facts)
Wilkinson v. Garland, 601 U.S. 209 (2024) (review of statutory legal standard application)
Juras v. Garland, 21 F.4th 53 (2d Cir. 2021) (jurisdictional limits on review of cancellation denial)
Chen v. Chen Qualified Settlement Fund, 552 F.3d 218 (2d Cir. 2009) (adverse rulings alone do not show bias)