Plain-English summary
Court narrows how judges review 'exceptional and extremely unusual' hardship for cancellation of removal
In Wilkinson v. Garland (22-666), the Supreme Court held that whether an immigrant meets the Immigration and Nationality Act’s “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” standard is a mixed question of law and fact, and clarified how courts should review that determination. The Court reversed in part, vacated in part, and remanded the case to the lower courts for further proceedings.
Why this matters
The decision determines how appellate courts review immigration judges’ hardship findings when immigrants seek cancellation of removal. It affects the level of scrutiny applied to legal interpretation of the statutory hardship test and thus can change outcomes in removal cases where hardship is contested.
Who may feel it
- Non‑permanent residents seeking cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. §1229b(b)(1)
- Immigration judges and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA)
- Federal appellate courts reviewing immigration cases
- U.S. citizen and lawful‑permanent‑resident family members whose relatives face removal
Key questions
- Is the question whether an applicant meets the INA’s "exceptional and extremely unusual hardship" requirement a question of law, fact, or a mixed question?