TABLE OF CONTENTSI. IntroductionII.Eligibility Requirements for Cancellation-B a. Individuals Disqualified from Cancellation-B b. Marriage Fraud c. Burden of Proof d. Continuous Physical Presence and the Stop Time RuleIII.Cancellation of Removal for non-LPRs and Suspension of Deportation a. Extreme Hardship and Exceptional and Extremely Unusual Hardship b. Continuous Physical Presence c. Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) Cancellation [INA § 240A(b)(2)] d. Treatment where Criminal Grounds are Charged e. Numerical Limitations f. Petty Offense Exception g. Divisible Statutes h. Conditions to ReliefIV.Exceptional and Extremely Unusual Hardship a. Matter of Recinas, 23 I&N Dec. 467 (BIA 2002) – The Human Rights Dimension b. Matter of Arellano-Murillo, A75 309 149, 26 Immigr. Rep. B1-42 (BIA Sept. 30, 2002) c. Totality of Hardship FactorsV.

Certain convictions for violent or dangerous criminal activities trigger this standard in the INA 212(h) context as well. In the Matter of Recinas, 23 I&N Dec. 467, 470 (BIA 2002), the Board granted cancellation of removal to an applicant based on extreme hardship to her U.S. citizen children. The Board held that the applicant met her burden for a variety of reasons including that her children would be unable to adjust to life in the country of return, they were reliant on the applicant for support, the applicant’s mother (a U.S. citizen) who helped her support the children would not relocate, and the applicant would likely be unable to obtain status in the United States subsequent to her removal.ConclusionIf an alien is seeking a waiver or other form of immigration relief, it is important to consult with an experienced immigration attorney.

Ettienne, No. 10-3896, slip op. at 5. The BIA affirmed the IJ’s hardship determination. Ettienne, No. 10-3896, slip op. 5.On appeal to the Sixth Circuit, Ettienne argues that “the BIA failed to consider all the hardship factors in their totality, as required by the BIA’s precedential decision in In re Gonzalez Recinas, 23 I&N Dec. 467, 473 (BIA 2002).” Ettienne, No. 10-3896, slip op. at 6. Specifically, she “argues that the IJ ignored the totality requirement by failing to specifically identify every hardship factor that Ettienne’s family would face upon her removal.”