Holding that the Court had jurisdiction to review whether the petitioner suffered “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D) because it was a “question of law” that involved “the application of a legal standard to settled facts.” It reasoned that this determination was separate from the BIA’s discretionary decision whether to grant cancellation of removal to an applicant who met the statutory eligibility requirements. The Court nevertheless held that the petitioner failed to prove his children would experience “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” if he was removed, and thus he did not qualify for cancellation of removal pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(D).

Date of Decision