Cite as
29 I&N Dec. 186 (BIA 2025) Interim Decision #4117
Matter of Diego Geovanny BURI MORA, Respondent
Decided by Board July 21, 2025 1
U.S. Department of Justice
Executive Office for Immigration Review
Board of Immigration Appeals
The respondent has not established the requisite exceptional and extremely unusual
hardship to the qualifying relatives based on economic detriment and family separation,
particularly where the qualifying relatives will remain in the United States and treatment
for their mental health conditions and developmental delays will not be affected by the
respondent’s removal.
FOR THE RESPONDENT: Melvin R. Solomon, Esquire, Hackensack, New Jersey
FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY: Melissa Noyes, Assistant
Chief Counsel
BEFORE: Board Panel: MULLANE, HUNSUCKER, and GOODWIN, Appellate
Immigration Judges.
GOODWIN, Appellate Immigration Judge:
The Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) appeals from the
Immigration Judge’s February 4, 2025, decision granting the respondent’s
application for cancellation of removal for certain nonpermanent residents
under section 240A(b)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”),
8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1) (2018). The respondent, a native and citizen of
Ecuador, opposes the appeal. The appeal will be sustained.
The Immigration Judge determined that the respondent was statutorily
eligible for cancellation of removal and warranted a grant in the exercise of
discretion. On appeal, DHS argues that the Immigration Judge erred in
determining that the respondent’s qualifying relatives would suffer
exceptional and extremely unusual hardship if he were removed from the
United States, that he has demonstrated good moral character, and that he
merits a favorable exercise of discretion. Upon de novo review, we conclude
1
Pursuant to Order No. 6377-2025, dated August 18, 2025, the Attorney General
designated the Board’s decision in Matter of Buri Mora (BIA July 21, 2025), as precedent
in all proceedings involving the same issue or issues. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(g)(3) (2025).
Editorial changes have been made consistent with the designation of the case as a
precedent.
Page
186
Cite as 29 I&N Dec. 186 (BIA 2025) Interim Decision #4117
that the respondent did not establish that his removal to Ecuador would result
in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to his qualifying relatives, his
three United States citizen children and his United States citizen wife.
To establish exceptional and extremely unusual hardship, the respondent
must show that a qualifying relative will experience harm “substantially
beyond that which ordinarily would be expected” from a close family
member’s removal. Matter of Monreal, 23 I&N Dec. 56, 59 (BIA 2001)
(emphasis omitted) (citation omitted). The key factors to consider are the
ages, health, and circumstances of the qualifying relatives. See Matter of
Monreal,
23 I&N Dec. at 63 (observing that an elderly relative solely
dependent on the respondent or a qualifying child with serious health issues
or compelling special needs may have a strong case). If the hardship is based
on the health of a qualifying relative, the respondent should establish that the
health condition is serious and that adequate medical care would not be
reasonably available in the country of removal if the relative accompanies
the respondent. See Matter of J-J-G-,
27 I&N Dec. 808, 811 (BIA 2020).
We respectfully disagree with the Immigration Judge that the hardship
that each of the respondent’s United States citizen children or his United
States citizen wife may face upon the respondent’s removal would be
substantially beyond that which would ordinarily be expected when a close
family member leaves this country, even when the hardship factors are
considered in the aggregate. See Matter of Monreal, 23 I&N Dec. at 65.
While the respondent’s daughter has been diagnosed with autism and an
anxiety disorder and his sons have been diagnosed with developmental
delays, the conditions of all three United States citizen children are presently
being managed by individualized education programs or early intervention
services. As all three children would continue to remain in the United States
with the respondent’s United States citizen wife upon the respondent’s
removal, they would continue to receive medical care through state
Medicaid, as well as specialized educational support in the State of New
Jersey. See Matter of J-J-G-,
27 I&N Dec. at 812 (finding that even though
the qualifying relative may suffer from a serious medical condition, the
respondent did not demonstrate that adequate medical treatment was not
reasonably available).
The Immigration Judge found that the respondent’s removal would cause
financial strain for the respondent’s qualifying relatives, as his United States
citizen wife has had to work additional hours to compensate for the loss of
the respondent’s financial support. However, the respondent’s United States
citizen wife remains employed full time as a surgical coordinator and
continues to receive economic support from her family in the United States,
page
187
Cite as 29 I&N Dec. 186 (BIA 2025) Interim Decision #4117
as well as State-sponsored medical care for her children. Economic
detriment of the nature presented in this case is a common feature of a parent
departing the United States. See Matter of Andazola,
23 I&N Dec. 319, 323
(BIA 2002) (explaining that economic detriment alone is insufficient to
establish the requisite hardship, citing Matter of Pilch,
21 I&N Dec. 627
(BIA 1996), appeal dismissed,
129 F.3d 969 (7th Cir. 1997)).
The respondent’s removal will also cause emotional hardship for his
qualifying relatives. As stated by the Immigration Judge, the respondent is
particularly close with his daughter, whose behavior and grades have
declined since the respondent’s detention. However, the entire family of the
respondent’s wife is present in the United States and would be able to assist
in childcare for the respondent’s United States citizen children, as they have
in the past. As significant of a hardship as family separation is, it does not
generally meet the high standard of “exceptional and extremely unusual.”
See Matter of Pilch, 21 I&N Dec. at 631 (recognizing that emotional hardship
from family separation is a common result of deportation).
Thus, we conclude that the record evidence is insufficient as a matter of
law to satisfy the respondent’s burden to show that his removal would result
in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to his wife and children. As
this issue is dispositive of the respondent’s eligibility for relief, we need not
address DHS’ appellate arguments regarding good moral character and
discretion. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (“As a general
rule[,] courts and agencies are not required to make findings on issues the
decision of which is unnecessary to the results they reach.”). The appeal will
be sustained, the Immigration Judge’s decision vacated, and the respondent
removed to Ecuador.
ORDER: DHS’ appeal is sustained.
FURTHER ORDER: The Immigration Judge’s February 4, 2025,
decision granting the respondent’s application for cancellation of removal
under section 240A(b)(1) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1), is vacated.
FURTHER ORDER: The respondent is ordered removed from the
United States to Ecuador.
NOTICE: If a respondent is subject to a final order of removal and
willfully fails or refuses to depart from the United States pursuant to the
order, to make timely application in good faith for travel or other documents
necessary to depart the United States, or to present himself or herself at the
time and place required for removal by DHS or conspires to or takes any
page
188
Cite as 29 I&N Dec. 186 (BIA 2025) Interim Decision #4117
action designed to prevent or hamper the respondent’s departure pursuant to
the order of removal, the respondent shall be subject to a civil monetary
penalty of up to $998 for each day the respondent is in violation. See INA
§ 274D, 8 U.S.C. § 1324d (2018);
8 C.F.R. § 280.53(b)(14) (2025).
page
189
