Immigration Law

Unpub. BIA Cancellation Victory; Mexico; Education; Economic Conditions

"The respondent, now 40 years old, testified that his family, including his five United States citizen daughters and his undocumented wife, would accompany him to Mexico, and that he finds it necessary to take his large family to the small village where he has his only family ties in Mexico. ...  The respondent testified that the school in the village only offers education until the sixth grade, and that the village does not have indoor plumbing. ... The respondent further testified that his brothers in the village work as farmers, eating what they grow and selling the remainder of the crops, and that he would also need to participate in this subsistence agricultural lifestyle. ...  The respondent also testified that he would need to rely on farming because he would not be able to continue working in his present roofing profession because roofing materials in Mexico are not the same as the materials used in the United States. ...  The record reflects that the respondent and his family have close ties with their church congregation in the United States. ... The record also reflects that the respondent's two oldest teenage daughters participate in an Upward Bound program, designed to increase access to higher education for high school students from low income families. ... Based on the unique circumstances presented in this case, and in particular, the little or no prospect of secondary education in the village where the family would return, the two oldest daughters' loss of participation in the Upward Bound program, and economic conditions due to subsistence living to support a large family of seven in Mexico, we find that the cumulative effect of hardships that the respondent's children will suffer as a result of the respondent's removal are exceptional and extremely unusual. Therefore, the respondent is statutorily eligible for cancellation of removal. Moreover, we find that the respondent merits the relief of cancellation of removal in the exercise of discretion. ... The respondent's appeal is sustained." - Matter of X-, Nov. 29, 2011, unpub.  [Hats off to Jonathan M. "Jonny" Benson of Midvale, Utah!]