The following excerpt is from Tobar-Bautista v. Sessions, 16-4229 (2nd Cir. 2018):
Our jurisdiction to review the agency's denial of cancellation of removal based on failure to satisfy the hardship requirement is limited to constitutional claims and questions of law. 8 U.S.C. 1252(a)(2)(B), (D); Barco-Sandoval v. Gonzales, 516 F.3d 35, 39-40 (2d Cir. 2008).
Page 3
Accordingly, our review of the hardship determination is limited to whether the decision "is made without rational justification or based on an erroneous legal standard, or rests on fact-finding which is flawed by an error of law." Mendez v. Holder, 566 F.3d 316, 322 (2d Cir. 2009) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted). An agency makes an error of law when "some facts important to the subtle determination of 'exceptional and extremely unusual hardship' have been totally overlooked and others have been seriously mischaracterized." Id. at 323. But "the agency does not commit an 'error of law' every time an item of evidence is not explicitly considered or is described with imperfect accuracy." Id.
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.