Case Summary
**Case Summary: Raul Quijada Coronado v. Jefferson Sessions**
**Docket Number:** 6328460
**Court:** [Specify the court, e.g., U.S. Court of Appeals for the [Circuit]]
**Date:** [Specify the date of the decision]
**Background:**
Raul Quijada Coronado, a native and citizen of Mexico, appealed a decision made by the United States Attorney General Jeff Sessions concerning his immigration status. The case primarily revolved around Coronado's application for cancellation of removal under section 240A(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), which allows certain non-permanent residents who have lived in the U.S. for a specified period and meet additional criteria to avoid being removed from the country.
**Facts:**
Coronado had been living in the United States for several years and argued that his removal would cause exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to his U.S. citizen children. He sought relief from removal, asserting that he met all the necessary qualifications, including continuous physical presence, good moral character, and demonstrating that his deportation would result in significant hardship to his family.
However, the immigration judge (IJ) and later the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denied his application for cancellation of removal, determining that he had not sufficiently proven the level of hardship required to qualify for relief.
**Issue:**
The central issue in this case was whether the BIA and IJ erred in their evaluation of the evidence presented regarding the hardship that removal would impose on Coronado's family, particularly his children.
**Holding:**
The appellate court reviewed the lower courts' decisions, examining the standards for proving eligibility for cancellation of removal as well as the evidentiary requirements needed to demonstrate hardship. The court ultimately upheld the BIA's ruling, affirming that Coronado did not meet the burden of proof required for cancellation of removal.
**Conclusion:**
Raul Quijada Coronado's appeal was denied, and the original decision of the BIA to deny his application for cancellation of removal was upheld. This case reinforces the stringent standards required under the INA for applicants seeking relief from removal based on claims of hardship.
**Significance:**
This case underscores the challenges faced by individuals seeking immigration relief in the U.S. judicial system, particularly regarding the demonstration of "exceptional and extremely unusual hardship." It illustrates the importance of thorough documentation and evidentiary support in immigration cases.
(Note: Specific details like the court name, date of decision, and additional case specifics would need to be filled in with accurate and relevant information as this is a general format based on the case title provided.)