CA4 on Credibility, Evidence: Garcia Cortes v. Garland

Garcia Cortes v. Garland

"Virginia Garcia Cortes petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals decision affirming an Immigration Judge’s denial of her application for cancellation of removal. The Immigration Judge and Board of Immigration Appeals denied Garcia Cortes’s application on the basis that she failed to make the requisite showing under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(D) that her removal would impose “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” on her daughter. We conclude that the facts as found by the Immigration Judge do not support a determination that Garcia Cortes’s daughter would suffer exceptional and extremely unusual hardship if Garcia Cortes was removed. But because the Immigration Judge failed to consider key portions of a therapist’s letter that was central to Garcia Cortes’s argument, we vacate and remand for further proceedings. ... Because the issue of whether an Immigration Judge complied with the statutory requirement to consider all the evidence presented to them does not require courts to second-guess an Immigration Judge’s factual findings, this case presents a mixed question of law and fact over which we may exercise jurisdiction. And because the Immigration Judge here failed to consider the single most important piece of evidence Garcia Cortes offered at her hearing, he violated the procedure required by statute. We therefore grant Garcia Cortes’s petition in part, vacate the Board’s Order, and remand the matter to the Board for further proceedings consistent with this opinion."

[Hats off to Zindzi Baugh Corbett!  Listen to the oral argument here.]