The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has affirmed the deportation order for a married Mexican couple, rejecting their argument that removing them from the United States would cause exceptional hardship to their U.S.-citizen children.
In *David Camargo Gomez v. Attorney General United States of America* (3d Cir. 2026), the appeals court denied the petition for review filed by David Camargo Gomez and Edith Ponce Cordero, who challenged the denial of their application for cancellation of removal under federal immigration law.
The case centers on the stringent "exceptional and extremely unusual hardship" standard required under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1), which allows certain undocumented immigrants to avoid removal if they can demonstrate their departure would cause severe hardship to qualifying U.S. relatives.
Immigration Judge Tamar Wilson initially concluded that the petitioners failed to meet this demanding legal threshold regarding their U.S.-citizen children. The Board of Immigration Appeals subsequently affirmed the immigration judge's decision, leading to the couple's appeal to the Third Circuit.
In a nonprecedential opinion authored by Circuit Judge Krause, the three-judge panel rejected multiple arguments raised by the petitioners. The couple contended that both the immigration judge and the Board of Immigration Appeals failed to adequately consider relevant hardship factors when analyzing their cancellation-of-removal claim.
The petitioners also argued that the lower immigration courts erred by refusing to admit what they characterized as untimely supplemental evidence that could have supported their hardship claim. Immigration proceedings often involve strict deadlines for submitting evidence, and courts typically reject materials filed after established cutoff dates unless exceptional circumstances warrant their consideration.
Additionally, Gomez and Ponce Cordero raised a constitutional challenge, arguing they were denied a full and fair hearing before a neutral factfinder in violation of their Fifth Amendment due process rights. Such constitutional claims in immigration cases often focus on procedural fairness and the adequacy of the hearing process.
However, the Third Circuit found none of these arguments persuasive enough to warrant relief. The court noted that its review of immigration judges' hardship determinations is "circumscribed in two ways," indicating the limited scope of appellate review in such cases.
The opinion references the legal principle that "[t]he facts underlying any determination on cancellation of removal," including immigration judges' findings on "the seriousness of a family member's medical condition," are generally "unreviewable" under federal law. This reflects the substantial deference appellate courts must give to immigration judges' factual findings.
The case was submitted under Third Circuit Local Appellate Rule 34.1(a) on Jan. 29, 2026, and decided the following day, reflecting the court's expedited handling of immigration appeals. The panel consisted of Circuit Judges Krause, Freeman, and Montgomery-Reeves.
The "exceptional and extremely unusual hardship" standard represents one of the most difficult burdens to meet in immigration law. Unlike other hardship standards that may require showing "extreme hardship," the cancellation of removal statute demands an even higher threshold that courts have interpreted restrictively.
To qualify for cancellation of removal under this provision, applicants must demonstrate continuous physical presence in the United States for at least 10 years, show they have been persons of good moral character during that period, and prove their removal would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to qualifying U.S. citizen or permanent resident relatives.
The hardship analysis typically considers factors such as the qualifying relative's age, health, family ties, length of residence in the United States, economic circumstances, and conditions in the country to which the applicant would be removed. However, courts have emphasized that common consequences of removal, such as family separation or economic hardship, generally do not rise to the exceptional level required by law.
This decision adds to the body of Third Circuit precedent interpreting the demanding hardship standard in cancellation of removal cases. While the opinion is designated as nonprecedential and therefore not binding on future cases, it reflects the circuit's approach to reviewing such determinations.
The ruling affects not only Gomez and Ponce Cordero but also highlights the challenges faced by mixed-status families where undocumented parents have U.S.-citizen children. Immigration advocates have long criticized the exceptional hardship standard as creating an unreasonably high bar that separates families despite significant ties to American communities.
The case number is 22-2300, and the Board of Immigration Appeals case numbers are A206-072-810 and A206-072-811. The petitioners retain the right to seek further review, though options for additional appeals in immigration cases are limited under federal law.