The decision by the Immigration Judge, which found that Situ Kamu Wilkinson did not meet the stringent criteria for “exceptional and extremely unusual” hardship under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(D) necessary for the cancellation of removal, involves both legal and factual elements.
This type of decision falls into a special category that can be reassessed under the provision of Section 1252(a)(2)(D), which allows for the reconsideration of “questions of law.” Accordingly, the determination by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit that the Immigration Judge’s decision could not be re-evaluated under Section 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) was incorrect.
This scenario underscores the complexity of immigration law, particularly in how legal standards are interpreted and applied to individual cases.
An Immigration Judge decided that Situ Kamu Wilkinson didn’t qualify for a special kind of legal relief because he couldn’t prove his situation was “exceptionally and extremely unusual,” as the law requires. However, this decision is something that can be reviewed or checked again, especially when it comes to interpreting the law. There was a misunderstanding by a higher court (the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit) about whether they could re-examine the judge’s decision. In simple terms, the judge’s decision was not final and could be questioned, especially on how the law was understood and applied in Wilkinson’s case.
