A federal appeals court has sided with the Department of Justice and denied a Missouri man’s request to stop his deportation, ruling that the potential difficulties his children would face in Mexico do not meet the high legal bar required for him to remain in the United States.
In a decision filed Thursday on Eugenio Alonso-Juarez v. Pamela Bondi, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit upheld prior rulings against Eugenio Alonso-Juarez. A native of Mexico, Alonso-Juarez moved to Missouri over a decade ago and has two children who are U.S. citizens.
After removal proceedings began against him, he applied for a “cancellation of removal,” a specific legal relief reserved for non-citizens who can prove their deportation would cause “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” to family members who are U.S. citizens or permanent residents.
The court, however, found his situation did not reach that standard. “With nothing ‘exceptional’ or ‘extremely unusual’ about it, however, we deny the petition for review,” Circuit Judge Stras wrote in the court’s opinion.
During the initial hearings, Alonso-Juarez and his wife testified that their children would suffer in Mexico due to a lower standard of living, fewer educational opportunities, and a difficult job market. Alonso-Juarez also pointed to injuries he sustained after falling from a roof a few years ago, arguing that he needed more time to gather medical records to show he would be unable to work or find adequate healthcare abroad.
READ: Research Group Sues Bondi, Rubio, And Noem Over “Censorship Policy” Visa Restrictions
The immigration judge originally denied a request for more time, noting that the record already contained several medical reports. The appeals court agreed, stating that moving the case along was not a “fundamental procedural error.”
A significant portion of the ruling focused on how courts should review these types of cases following a recent Supreme Court decision, Wilkinson v. Garland. The Eighth Circuit determined that while they now have the authority to review hardship claims, they must give weight to the original findings of immigration officials.
The court noted that one medical report in the file indicated Alonso-Juarez could “return to work without restriction,” which undercut his claim that he could not support his family in Mexico. Additionally, the court pointed out that Alonso-Juarez has family in Mexico who could assist with the transition.
Because the law requires hardship to be “substantially different from, or beyond, that which would normally be expected from deportation,” the three-judge panel concluded there was enough evidence to support the original decision to deny his application.
The ruling effectively ends Alonso-Juarez’s current legal challenge to remain in the country.
Please make a small donation to the Tampa Free Press to help sustain independent journalism. Your contribution enables us to continue delivering high-quality, local, and national news coverage.
Sign up: Subscribe to our free newsletter for a curated selection of top stories delivered straight to your inbox
