Matter of Buri Mora: Cancellation of Removal for Non-Permanent Residents
Understanding the legal barriers for relief from removal—and the challenges of proving hardship.
Case Snapshot
- Respondent: Diego Geovanny Buri Mora, Ecuadorian national
- Decision: July 21, 2025
- Result: Board of Immigration Appeals reversed the Immigration Judge; cancellation of removal denied and removal ordered
- Official Opinion PDF
Cancellation of Removal: Key Requirements
- Continuous Physical Presence: At least 10 years in the U.S. (with strict rules on how this time is measured—see below on the stop-time rule)
- Good Moral Character: Maintained throughout the relevant period
- No Disqualifying Convictions: Certain crimes make cancellation unavailable
- Hardship: Must prove “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” to a U.S. citizen or LPR spouse, parent, or child if they are removed
The “Stop-Time” Rule
Practitioners must scrutinize whether their client satisfies the 10-year continuous physical presence requirement—the “stop-time” rule makes this much harder:
- Under INA § 240A(d)(1), the clock stops when the noncitizen is served a Notice to Appear (NTA) or commits certain crimes.
- Pereira v. Sessions (2018): The Supreme Court held a NTA must state the time and place of hearing to trigger the stop-time rule; a vague NTA is not enough.
Pereira v. Sessions, 585 U.S. ___ (2018) - Niz-Chavez v. Garland (2021): The NTA’s info must be in a single document—no “fixing” an invalid NTA by mailing hearing details later.
Niz-Chavez v. Garland, 593 U.S. 155 (2021) - BIA in Matter of Ordaz clarified: not every NTA stops time—proceedings must result from it.
Practice tip: Many old NTAs are defective—always review NTAs! The 10-year count only includes time before the first proper NTA that actually starts proceedings.
Why Relief Was Denied in Buri Mora
- The BIA disagreed with the Immigration Judge and found the record did not show “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” to the respondent’s U.S. citizen family.
- Economic hardship: Loss of income and financial strain, while difficult, are common and not enough for relief.
“Economic detriment of the nature presented in this case is a common feature of a parent departing the United States.” - Family separation/emotional strain: Significant but typical in removal cases.
“Emotional hardship from family separation is a common result of deportation.” - Children’s developmental needs: Since the children and their mother were not being removed—and would retain access to services in New Jersey—these challenges were not enough.
“As all three children would continue to remain… they would continue to receive medical care through state Medicaid, as well as specialized educational support in the State of New Jersey.”
For Practitioners
- Double-check NTAs: If any technical defect exists (missing time/place or multi-part notice), pursue stop-time challenges based on Pereira and Niz-Chavez.
- Prepare thorough evidence for every type of hardship but recognize the Board is strict—medical, emotional, and economic impacts must be far beyond the norm.
- The stop-time rule is often the first, and most decisive, ground for ineligibility in close cases.
