In a recent decision, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied a petition for review filed by two Ecuadorian citizens, Jose Antonio Buestan Perez and Rosa Hermelinda Lliviganay Lliviganay. This ruling affects their efforts to remain in the United States and has implications for their U.S.-citizen children, as it addresses the legal standards for cancellation of removal based on hardship.

The court's ruling came from a petition filed under docket number 25-2972, challenging a final order from the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) that upheld a previous decision made by an Immigration Judge (IJ). The BIA's decision was issued on November 7, 2025, confirming the IJ's February 27, 2023, ruling that denied the couple's applications for cancellation of removal.

The petitioners, Buestan Perez and Lliviganay Lliviganay, originally sought cancellation of removal based on the potential hardship their removal would cause to their U.S.-citizen children. They argued that their children would face exceptional and extremely unusual hardship if they were forced to relocate to Ecuador, particularly due to the children's medical conditions, including asthma.

The case reached the Second Circuit after the petitioners expressed dissatisfaction with the BIA's ruling. The couple claimed that the BIA misapplied the legal standards regarding hardship and did not adequately consider the medical needs of their children. The BIA's decision was based on the IJ's findings, which the petitioners challenged as flawed.

The Second Circuit judges, Amalya L. Kearse, Denny Chin, and Myrna Pérez, reviewed the case and ultimately denied the petition for review. The court stated, "We are not persuaded" by the petitioners' arguments that the agency misapplied its caselaw or misunderstood the hardships their children would face if removed to Ecuador.

The judges noted that the petitioners had the burden to demonstrate that their removal would result in "exceptional and extremely unusual hardship" to their children, as defined by law. The court referenced the legal standard that this type of hardship must be significantly beyond what would be expected if a close family member were to leave the country. The judges emphasized that the agency's determination regarding hardship is subject to a clear error standard, meaning that the court would only overturn the decision if it found a definitive mistake.

In their ruling, the judges explained that the IJ had properly cited relevant case law to support its conclusions. They noted that the IJ's decision was not based on the petitioners' claims of a lower standard of living in Ecuador, which does not meet the hardship requirement. The court also stated that the petitioners' claims regarding their children's medical conditions did not sufficiently demonstrate that the children would face exceptional hardship if they were to accompany their parents to Ecuador.

One key aspect of the ruling involved the petitioners' daughter, who had previously experienced an asthma attack while visiting Ecuador in 2022. The court pointed out that she received medical care and remained in the country for an additional three weeks without further issues. This experience led the court to conclude that the agency's determination that the children would not suffer exceptional hardship was not clearly erroneous.

The Second Circuit's decision has significant implications for the petitioners and their family. By denying the petition for review, the court upheld the BIA's ruling, meaning that Buestan Perez and Lliviganay Lliviganay must now face the possibility of removal from the United States. This outcome highlights the challenges faced by many immigrant families seeking to remain in the U.S. based on claims of hardship related to their children.

The ruling also underscores the legal standards that govern cancellation of removal proceedings, particularly the requirement to demonstrate exceptional hardship. This decision may influence future cases involving similar claims, as it clarifies the level of proof required to establish hardship in immigration matters.

Looking ahead, the petitioners may have limited options for further legal recourse. The Second Circuit's ruling is generally considered final unless there are grounds for further appeal or new evidence arises. It is unclear if the petitioners plan to pursue additional legal avenues or if there are related cases pending that could impact their situation.

Overall, the Second Circuit's decision in Buestan Perez v. Blanche serves as a reminder of the complexities involved in immigration law and the stringent requirements that individuals must meet to avoid removal from the United States.