LPR Cancellation of Removal Denied in Discretion: Matter of Cornejo-Aguilar (BIA 2026)

Cancellation of removal for lawful permanent residents is often described as a statutory test: five years as a resident, seven years of continuous residence and no aggravated felony. Meeting that test is only the first step. In Matter of Cornejo-Aguilar, 30 I&N Dec. 105 (BIA 2026), the Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed a denial in the exercise of discretion despite significant equities.

The decision

The Board decided the case on August 7, 2026, and the Attorney General designated it as precedent by an order dated September 24, 2026. The Board held that the Immigration Judge properly denied cancellation under section 240A(a) as a matter of discretion. The respondent's significant equities were outweighed by her involvement in money laundering and alien smuggling, a conviction for child abuse, a history of abuse and neglect investigations, and her attempt to minimize her involvement in and knowledge of the events that led to her grandson's death.

The eligibility requirements

Under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(a), a permanent resident may seek cancellation if he or she has been a resident for at least five years, has resided continuously in the United States for seven years after admission in any status, and has not been convicted of an aggravated felony. The seven-year period can be cut short by the stop-time rule in section 240A(d)(1), which can be triggered by committing certain offenses. Our guides on who is eligible and how cancellation works cover these rules in detail.

How discretion is weighed

Since Matter of C-V-T-, 22 I&N Dec. 7 (BIA 1998), the Board has weighed favorable factors such as family ties, long residence, service, employment, property and rehabilitation against adverse factors such as the nature and recency of criminal conduct and other evidence of bad character. Cornejo-Aguilar shows three things about that balance:

• Conduct counts, not only convictions. Involvement in money laundering and smuggling weighed against the respondent alongside her conviction.
• Investigations and history matter. The record of abuse and neglect investigations was part of the adverse picture.
• Minimizing hurts. The Board pointed to the respondent's attempt to minimize her role and knowledge, a credibility problem that can outweigh strong equities.

Preparing a stronger case

• Accept responsibility in testimony where the record shows involvement; minimization can be fatal.
• Document rehabilitation with evidence from treatment providers, employers and community institutions.
• Prepare family members to testify about specific hardship and specific changes in behavior.
• Address every adverse item in the record before DHS raises it; see the requirements for cancellation under section 240A(a).

Limits on review

Federal courts generally cannot review the discretionary denial itself under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B), although constitutional claims and questions of law remain reviewable under section 1252(a)(2)(D). That makes the hearing before the Immigration Judge decisive. INA § 242(a)(2)(B)(ii) and the discretionary-action bar explains how the jurisdictional limits work in federal court. Residents who are not yet in proceedings can review how green card holders become deportable.

Related Guides on This Site

See also Can Marriage Stop Deportation. See also Deportation Process Timeline. See also The Cuban Adjustment Act a Path to Legal Status for Cuban Nationals in Removal Proceedings.

Disclosure: Criminal Immigration Law collaborates with the law firm that publishes Mandamus.com and N600K.com; some articles link to their guides. General information only, not legal advice.