Toalombo Yanez v. Bondi
Split Score
What is a Split Score?
This score (0-100) indicates how likely this case is to be reviewed by the Supreme Court based on:
Case Summary
Disposition
Affirmed
The petitioning non-citizen challenged the Board of Immigration Appeals’ denial of cancellation of removal, arguing both that the agency wrongly found her children would not face “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” and that the BIA improperly applied a new standard retroactively. The Second Circuit held it had jurisdiction after Wilkinson v. Garland, adopted a clear-error standard for reviewing hardship determinations, found no clear error in the agency’s decision, rejected the retroactivity claim, and therefore denied the petition (affirming the agency).
Circuit Split Identified
Legal Issue
What is the proper standard of appellate review (clear error vs. substantial evidence) for the ‘exceptional and extremely unusual hardship’ determination in cancellation-of-removal cases after Wilkinson v. Garland?
Circuit Positions
Apply clear-error review to the BIA’s exceptional-and-extremely-unusual-hardship determination.
Apply substantial-evidence review to the BIA’s exceptional-and-extremely-unusual-hardship determination.
Conflict Summary
The Second Circuit holds that the hardship determination is a primarily factual mixed question reviewed for clear error, whereas the Third and Ninth Circuits have held that the same determination must be reviewed under the highly deferential substantial-evidence standard.