Samuel Cardenas, a Dominican Republic native, sought cancellation of removal after suffering abuse from his stepfather Francisco Escolastico, who terrorized both Cardenas and his mother Maria Perdomo through daily beatings and threats of deportation. Cardenas left home at 17 to escape the abuse but continued supporting his mother, who later attempted suicide multiple times and was diagnosed with major depressive disorder and PTSD after ending her relationship with Escolastico.
Writing for the panel, Circuit Judge Shwartz found the BIA's interpretation in Matter of L-L-P- violated "basic rules of grammar" by treating the present-tense verb "is" as referring only to the past. "If Congress meant to limit the statute's coverage to only abusers who were LPRs at the time of abuse, it would have used language such as 'who was then' an LPR," Shwartz wrote, adding that the BIA's reading rendered the phrase "or was" superfluous.
The Immigration Judge originally denied both of Cardenas' applications - for special rule cancellation and standard cancellation of removal - ruling that Escolastico lacked LPR status during the abuse period. The BIA upheld the denial in a split decision, with the majority agreeing that abusers must hold qualifying immigration status at the time of abuse, though a dissenter argued Cardenas' deportation would cause "exceptional and extremely unusual hardship" to his mother.
The court granted the petition on special rule cancellation and remanded for further proceedings, but upheld the denial of standard cancellation relief, finding substantial evidence supported the BIA's conclusion that Perdomo would not suffer exceptional hardship despite her trauma history. The decision expands protection for abuse victims by allowing relief when abusers obtain qualifying immigration status after committing abuse but before relief is adjudicated.