The Court agreed to hear a case considering removal cancelation for exceptional hardship when issued by the Board of Immigration Appeals. The case focuses on whether the decisions from the BIA are reviewable. A second case the Supreme Court agreed to hear considers the definition of sufficient immigration notice.

A circuit court is split on whether appeals courts have the authority to review BIA outcomes denying removal cancelation for noncitizens who do not show proof of exceptional hardship on their lawful permanent resident status or U.S. citizenship family members if they are deported. An individual overstayed their visitor visa and was arrested and removal proceedings ensued. An immigration judge found that their removal does not create a financial or emotional hardship beyond the typical levels with a parent’s removal and no exceptional hardship exists. The BIA agreed with the immigration judge’s decision. The Third Circuit found that they do not have jurisdiction to review the BIA decision under Section 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) of Title 8 of the U.S. Code.

The Supreme Court also agreed to hear three additional immigration-related cases which are consolidated into one case. The issue considers whether notices to appear to begin removal proceedings are deficient if they do not include the time and place of the individual’s immigration hearing within that single document. Individuals are pursuing reopening their in absentia removal orders when all information required as to where and when to appear is not included in a single document. The Justice Department and the Biden Administration urged the Court to consider this matter.

If you have questions about removal proceedings or any other immigration-related issues, contact us at ILBSG. We actively follow ongoing immigration news and policy updates to ensure our clients get the right advice.

BIA Board of Immigration Appeals Supreme Court Immigration Rulings