Holding that the Court had jurisdiction to review whether 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.” The Court nevertheless ruled that Petitioner failed to prove his U.S. citizen children would experience “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” if he was removed, and thus he did not qualify for non-LPR cancellation of removal.

Date of Decision