The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit upheld an immigration judge's denial of Gabriel Alvarado's application for cancellation of removal, despite his having four U.S. citizen children, including a daughter with Down syndrome and other serious medical conditions. The three-judge panel ruled that Alvarado failed to demonstrate the "exceptional and extremely unusual hardship" required under federal immigration law.
The case, *Alvarado v. Bondi*, centers on Gabriel Alvarado, a Mexican citizen who unlawfully entered the United States in 2000. Alvarado sought relief from removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(D), which allows for cancellation of removal if an immigrant can demonstrate that their removal would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to qualifying relatives who are U.S. citizens.
Alvarado's case presented compelling personal circumstances. His oldest child, Lorena, was 24 years old at the time of the immigration judge's December 2019 decision and has Down syndrome, diabetes, and a seizure disorder. His three other children were 19, 15, and 2 years old, all U.S. citizens. Despite these circumstances, both the immigration judge and later the Board of Immigration Appeals found that Alvarado had not met the stringent legal standard required for relief.
The immigration judge denied Alvarado's application for cancellation of removal but granted his request for voluntary departure. Voluntary departure allows individuals to leave the United States on their own, avoiding some of the harsh consequences of a formal removal order, including bars on future reentry. When Alvarado appealed the denial of cancellation to the Board of Immigration Appeals, the BIA dismissed his appeal.
The Sixth Circuit's opinion, authored by Circuit Judge Ronald Lee Gilman and joined by Circuit Judges Griffin and Murphy, analyzed whether the immigration judge and BIA committed legal error in their decisions. The court applied the "exceptional and extremely unusual hardship" standard established in federal immigration law, which sets an extremely high bar for relief.
This standard requires more than the typical hardship that would result from family separation. Courts must consider factors including the qualifying relative's ties to the United States, the conditions in the country to which the applicant would be removed, and the qualifying relative's ability to relocate. The presence of serious medical conditions, educational disruption, and economic hardship are relevant but not automatically dispositive factors.
The case highlights the challenges faced by undocumented immigrants who are parents of U.S. citizen children in seeking relief from removal. Even when compelling humanitarian factors are present, such as a child with significant disabilities requiring ongoing care, the legal standard remains exceptionally difficult to meet.
Alvarado's situation reflects broader patterns in immigration law enforcement and family separation. According to immigration advocacy organizations, thousands of U.S. citizen children are separated from undocumented parents each year through removal proceedings. The "exceptional and extremely unusual hardship" standard has been criticized by some immigration attorneys as setting an unreasonably high threshold that fails to adequately consider the best interests of U.S. citizen children.
The Sixth Circuit's decision is not recommended for publication, meaning it will have limited precedential value for future cases. However, it demonstrates the consistent application of the strict hardship standard across federal circuit courts. Immigration courts and the BIA regularly deny cancellation applications even in cases involving U.S. citizen children with serious medical conditions or disabilities.
The involvement of Attorney General Pamela Bondi as the named respondent reflects the standard practice in federal immigration appeals, where the Attorney General represents the government's interests. The case was filed during the transition period following the 2024 presidential election, when Bondi was nominated to serve as Attorney General.
For Alvarado, the denial means he must pursue voluntary departure or face formal removal proceedings. Voluntary departure typically allows individuals 30 to 120 days to leave the United States, depending on when it is granted in the proceedings. If he fails to depart voluntarily within the prescribed timeframe, he could face a removal order and additional immigration penalties.
The case underscores the limited relief options available to long-term undocumented residents, even those with deep family ties to the United States. While Alvarado had been in the country for nearly two decades at the time of his hearing, establishing a life and family, immigration law provides narrow exceptions to removal that require meeting extremely demanding legal standards.
Immigration attorneys often counsel clients that cancellation of removal under the hardship standard remains one of the most difficult forms of immigration relief to obtain. Success typically requires extraordinary circumstances beyond what most families facing separation experience, making cases like Alvarado's outcome unfortunately common in federal immigration courts.