Case Summary
**Case Summary: Valdez-Bernal v. Mukasey**
**Docket Number:** 07-853705
**Court:** United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
**Date:** The decision was issued in 2008.
**Overview:**
This case involves a petition for review by Jose Valdez-Bernal, a native and citizen of Mexico, against Michael Mukasey, then Attorney General of the United States. Valdez-Bernal sought to challenge the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) which upheld an Immigration Judge’s (IJ) order of removal.
**Background:**
Valdez-Bernal entered the United States without inspection and was placed in removal proceedings. He applied for cancellation of removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), arguing that his removal would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to his U.S. citizen children. The IJ found that while Valdez-Bernal had established hardship, it did not rise to the level required under the law for cancellation of removal. The BIA affirmed the IJ's decision without comment.
**Legal Issues:**
The primary legal issues in this case included:
1. Whether the BIA erred in affirming the IJ’s ruling regarding the cancellation of removal.
2. The standard of review applied to the BIA’s decisions regarding hardship claims.
3. The procedural fairness of the proceedings before the IJ and BIA.
**Court's Analysis:**
The Ninth Circuit applied a highly deferential standard of review to the BIA’s and IJ’s determinations. The court evaluated the evidence presented in relation to the hardship factors, which included the children’s health, the family’s economic situation, and the psychological and emotional well-being of the children.
The court held that the IJ did not abuse discretion in determining that the hardship did not meet the threshold required for cancellation of removal. The decision emphasized that the IJ's findings were based on substantial evidence and were thus not overturned.
**Conclusion:**
The Ninth Circuit denied Valdez-Bernal's petition for review, upholding the BIA's decision to affirm the IJ's order of removal. This case reaffirmed the high standard required for demonstrating "exceptional and extremely unusual hardship" necessary for the cancellation of removal under the INA.
**Significance:**
Valdez-Bernal v. Mukasey highlights the stringent evidentiary standards that applicants must meet to avoid removal and illustrates the limits of judicial review in immigration cases, particularly concerning discretionary relief like cancellation of removal.