Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Juan Carlos Sanchez-Perez sought cancellation of removal based on hardship to qualifying family members. The immigration judge denied relief, and the Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed. He also challenged defects in his notice to appear, but before the agency he had framed those defects as jurisdictional.
His Ninth Circuit petition argued both that the agency mishandled the hardship record and that the deficient notice violated a nonjurisdictional claim-processing rule.
The Court’s Holding
A divided panel granted the petition in part and remanded for the agency to reconsider the hardship issue under the proper framework. The majority concluded the administrative decision did not adequately engage with material evidence relevant to the cumulative hardship inquiry.
The panel refused to consider the claim-processing theory because Sanchez-Perez had not exhausted it before the BIA. Raising only a jurisdictional objection did not alert the agency to a distinct nonjurisdictional argument. Judge Bea would have denied relief in full.
Key Takeaways
- The BIA must meaningfully consider highly probative hardship evidence in combination.
- Issue exhaustion is theory-specific; one legal characterization may not preserve another.
- A notice-to-appear objection should expressly identify every jurisdictional and claim-processing ground.
- A remand for correct analysis does not guarantee cancellation; the agency retains the initial merits decision.
Why It Matters
Immigration appellate briefing must do two things at once: build a complete cumulative-hardship record and preserve each legal theory in unmistakable terms. A broad objection to the same document may still be too narrow to preserve a different doctrinal claim.