NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ____________
No. 25-1194 ____________
AILAN ZHU, Petitioner
v.
ATTORNEY GENERAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ____________
On Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Agency No. BIA-1 : A208-350-013) Immigration Judge: Mary C. Lee ____________
Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) on October 20, 2025
Before: HARDIMAN, FREEMAN, and CHUNG, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: November 20, 2025)
_______________
OPINION * _______________
* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. FREEMAN, Circuit Judge.
Ailan Zhu petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA)
decision affirming the denial of her application for cancellation of removal. For the
reasons that follow, we will dismiss the petition in part and deny it in part.
I
Zhu is a native and citizen of China. She was born in 1974 and entered the United
States without inspection in 2003. In 2018, the government charged her with
inadmissibility as a noncitizen who was present in the United States without having been
admitted or paroled. See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i). Zhu admitted the charge and
applied for cancellation of removal. To qualify for that relief, she had to demonstrate
(among other things) that her removal would result in “exceptional and extremely
unusual hardship” to a qualifying relative who is a United States citizen or lawful
permanent resident. 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(D).
In 2019, Zhu had a hearing before an immigration judge (IJ) and offered evidence
regarding hardship to four qualifying relatives: her U.S. citizen daughter, E.C., who was
then 11 years old; her naturalized U.S. citizen husband, Xiong Zi Chen; and her lawful-
permanent-resident parents. Zhu and her entire extended family live in Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania. Zhu lives with her daughter, husband, and mother-in-law. Zhu’s parents
live with one of her brothers. That brother and Zhu’s four other siblings all have either
U.S. citizenship or lawful-permanent-resident status in the United States.
At age 5, E.C. was diagnosed with a joint connective tissue disorder called
Hypermobile Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome (“HEDS”). Because of her condition, E.C. has
2 twisted joints and is prone to falling down. She has physical activity restrictions and is
unable to attend gym classes at school. E.C. does not need to see a specialist for regular
treatment; instead, she sees a doctor only when she feels discomfort, such as when she
fell and sprained her ankle two months before her mother’s immigration hearing.
Zhu testified that, if she were removed to China, she would take E.C. with her so
she could supervise E.C.’s medical condition. E.C. does very well in U.S. schools.
However, as a noncitizen of China, E.C. would not be able to attend public school there
and would require a costly private education. Additionally, Zhu fears that E.C. could not
get health insurance in China because she is not a Chinese citizen. Moreover, although
Zhu speaks to E.C. in both Mandarin and English, E.C. speaks very little Mandarin and
does not read or write Chinese characters.
E.C. lived in China for part of her early childhood. Before she turned one, she was
sent to live with Zhu’s aunt in China so Zhu could work and earn money. E.C. remained
in China for over four years, during which time Zhu’s husband Chen paid for E.C.’s
preschool costs and Zhu’s aunt paid for E.C.’s routine healthcare costs.
Chen is the part owner of a glass manufacturing company with seven employees.
Together, the couple owns five houses that are worth over $600,000. They live in one of
the houses and rent the other four. Chen has high cholesterol, high blood pressure, and
high blood sugar. If Zhu were removed, Chen’s worry for Zhu and E.C. and his need to
take over the care of his elderly mother would cause a strain on his emotional and
medical condition. Zhu currently cares for Chen’s mother, who has poor vision and joint
issues.
3 Both of Zhu’s elderly parents also have health issues. Her father has high blood
pressure, high cholesterol, and kidney stones, while her mother has high blood pressure
and osteoporosis. Although Zhu’s parents live with their son, Zhu takes them to medical
appointments, picks up their medications, and helps them with household chores because
their other children are busy running businesses.
In addition to the care Zhu provides for her relatives, she works part-time in a
Chinese restaurant preparing take-out orders and greeting customers. She does not know
what employment she would find in China given her age and how long she has been
away from China.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the IJ determined that Zhu had not made the
requisite showing of hardship to any of her qualifying relatives. The IJ credited Zhu’s
testimony that she would take E.C. with her to China but found that Zhu’s and E.C.’s
separation from their relatives in the United States would be temporary because Chen (a
U.S. citizen) could petition for Zhu’s return to the United States. The IJ also found that
Zhu and Chen have significant assets that Chen can use to support Zhu and E.C.
financially during their temporary stay in China. Moreover, E.C. previously lived and
was educated in China, although she was very young at the time. And although Zhu had
not looked into private English-language schools that E.C. could attend in China, the IJ
found that such schools are a viable option for E.C. given her parents’ financial
resources.
As to E.C.’s medical condition, the IJ found that E.C. does not see a specialist for
her HEDS unless she feels discomfort, and that E.C.’s recent ankle sprain was readily
4 treatable. Although E.C.’s medical care in China would be costly, the IJ found that Zhu’s
and Chen’s assets could cover those costs during the duration of Zhu’s and E.C.’s time in
China.
Finally, the IJ found that Zhu’s siblings in the United States could care for Zhu’s
parents during Zhu’s absence from the country.
For these reasons, the IJ denied Zhu’s application for cancellation of removal and
ordered Zhu removed to China. Zhu then appealed to the BIA.
In a three-page opinion, the BIA affirmed the IJ’s determination that Zhu did not
satisfy the hardship standard as to any of her qualifying relatives, and it dismissed the
appeal. The BIA affirmed the IJ’s findings that Zhu and Chen have the financial
resources to manage E.C.’s HEDS and to send E.C. to an English-language private school
in China. It also affirmed the IJ’s finding that Zhu’s parents could be cared for by other
relatives in Philadelphia. And it determined that Zhu did not show that her parents or
husband would be unable to manage their medical conditions upon Zhu’s removal.
Notably, the BIA did not address the IJ’s finding that Zhu’s separation from her
family in the United States would be temporary. Despite Zhu’s challenge to that factual
finding, the BIA addressed Zhu’s case as if her removal to China would not be
temporary.
Zhu timely petitioned to us for review of the BIA’s decision.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ____________
No. 25-1194 ____________
AILAN ZHU, Petitioner
v.
ATTORNEY GENERAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ____________
On Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Agency No. BIA-1 : A208-350-013) Immigration Judge: Mary C. Lee ____________
Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) on October 20, 2025
Before: HARDIMAN, FREEMAN, and CHUNG, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: November 20, 2025)
_______________
OPINION * _______________
* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. FREEMAN, Circuit Judge.
Ailan Zhu petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA)
decision affirming the denial of her application for cancellation of removal. For the
reasons that follow, we will dismiss the petition in part and deny it in part.
I
Zhu is a native and citizen of China. She was born in 1974 and entered the United
States without inspection in 2003. In 2018, the government charged her with
inadmissibility as a noncitizen who was present in the United States without having been
admitted or paroled. See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i). Zhu admitted the charge and
applied for cancellation of removal. To qualify for that relief, she had to demonstrate
(among other things) that her removal would result in “exceptional and extremely
unusual hardship” to a qualifying relative who is a United States citizen or lawful
permanent resident. 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(D).
In 2019, Zhu had a hearing before an immigration judge (IJ) and offered evidence
regarding hardship to four qualifying relatives: her U.S. citizen daughter, E.C., who was
then 11 years old; her naturalized U.S. citizen husband, Xiong Zi Chen; and her lawful-
permanent-resident parents. Zhu and her entire extended family live in Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania. Zhu lives with her daughter, husband, and mother-in-law. Zhu’s parents
live with one of her brothers. That brother and Zhu’s four other siblings all have either
U.S. citizenship or lawful-permanent-resident status in the United States.
At age 5, E.C. was diagnosed with a joint connective tissue disorder called
Hypermobile Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome (“HEDS”). Because of her condition, E.C. has
2 twisted joints and is prone to falling down. She has physical activity restrictions and is
unable to attend gym classes at school. E.C. does not need to see a specialist for regular
treatment; instead, she sees a doctor only when she feels discomfort, such as when she
fell and sprained her ankle two months before her mother’s immigration hearing.
Zhu testified that, if she were removed to China, she would take E.C. with her so
she could supervise E.C.’s medical condition. E.C. does very well in U.S. schools.
However, as a noncitizen of China, E.C. would not be able to attend public school there
and would require a costly private education. Additionally, Zhu fears that E.C. could not
get health insurance in China because she is not a Chinese citizen. Moreover, although
Zhu speaks to E.C. in both Mandarin and English, E.C. speaks very little Mandarin and
does not read or write Chinese characters.
E.C. lived in China for part of her early childhood. Before she turned one, she was
sent to live with Zhu’s aunt in China so Zhu could work and earn money. E.C. remained
in China for over four years, during which time Zhu’s husband Chen paid for E.C.’s
preschool costs and Zhu’s aunt paid for E.C.’s routine healthcare costs.
Chen is the part owner of a glass manufacturing company with seven employees.
Together, the couple owns five houses that are worth over $600,000. They live in one of
the houses and rent the other four. Chen has high cholesterol, high blood pressure, and
high blood sugar. If Zhu were removed, Chen’s worry for Zhu and E.C. and his need to
take over the care of his elderly mother would cause a strain on his emotional and
medical condition. Zhu currently cares for Chen’s mother, who has poor vision and joint
issues.
3 Both of Zhu’s elderly parents also have health issues. Her father has high blood
pressure, high cholesterol, and kidney stones, while her mother has high blood pressure
and osteoporosis. Although Zhu’s parents live with their son, Zhu takes them to medical
appointments, picks up their medications, and helps them with household chores because
their other children are busy running businesses.
In addition to the care Zhu provides for her relatives, she works part-time in a
Chinese restaurant preparing take-out orders and greeting customers. She does not know
what employment she would find in China given her age and how long she has been
away from China.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the IJ determined that Zhu had not made the
requisite showing of hardship to any of her qualifying relatives. The IJ credited Zhu’s
testimony that she would take E.C. with her to China but found that Zhu’s and E.C.’s
separation from their relatives in the United States would be temporary because Chen (a
U.S. citizen) could petition for Zhu’s return to the United States. The IJ also found that
Zhu and Chen have significant assets that Chen can use to support Zhu and E.C.
financially during their temporary stay in China. Moreover, E.C. previously lived and
was educated in China, although she was very young at the time. And although Zhu had
not looked into private English-language schools that E.C. could attend in China, the IJ
found that such schools are a viable option for E.C. given her parents’ financial
resources.
As to E.C.’s medical condition, the IJ found that E.C. does not see a specialist for
her HEDS unless she feels discomfort, and that E.C.’s recent ankle sprain was readily
4 treatable. Although E.C.’s medical care in China would be costly, the IJ found that Zhu’s
and Chen’s assets could cover those costs during the duration of Zhu’s and E.C.’s time in
China.
Finally, the IJ found that Zhu’s siblings in the United States could care for Zhu’s
parents during Zhu’s absence from the country.
For these reasons, the IJ denied Zhu’s application for cancellation of removal and
ordered Zhu removed to China. Zhu then appealed to the BIA.
In a three-page opinion, the BIA affirmed the IJ’s determination that Zhu did not
satisfy the hardship standard as to any of her qualifying relatives, and it dismissed the
appeal. The BIA affirmed the IJ’s findings that Zhu and Chen have the financial
resources to manage E.C.’s HEDS and to send E.C. to an English-language private school
in China. It also affirmed the IJ’s finding that Zhu’s parents could be cared for by other
relatives in Philadelphia. And it determined that Zhu did not show that her parents or
husband would be unable to manage their medical conditions upon Zhu’s removal.
Notably, the BIA did not address the IJ’s finding that Zhu’s separation from her
family in the United States would be temporary. Despite Zhu’s challenge to that factual
finding, the BIA addressed Zhu’s case as if her removal to China would not be
temporary.
Zhu timely petitioned to us for review of the BIA’s decision.
II
We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1) and (2)(D) to review a
determination of whether a noncitizen has demonstrated the requisite hardship to qualify
5 for cancellation of removal. Wilkinson v. Att’y Gen., 131 F.4th 134, 138 (3d Cir. 2025).
Yet our jurisdiction is limited to whether the established facts satisfy the statutory
standard; we may not review the underlying factual findings. Id.
To establish “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1229b(b)(1)(D), an applicant must make a showing “substantially beyond the ordinary
hardship that would be expected when a close family member leaves this country.”
Wilkinson, 131 F.4th at 142 (quoting In re Monreal-Aguinaga, 23 I. & N. Dec. 56, 62
(BIA 2001)).
We review the agency’s hardship determination for substantial evidence. Id.
Under that “limited and deferential standard of review,” id. at 143, we will not disturb the
agency’s determination “unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to
conclude to the contrary,” id. at 142 (quoting Nasrallah v. Barr, 590 U.S. 573, 584
(2020)).
Where, as here, the BIA affirms an IJ’s decision and adds analysis of its own, we
review both decisions, referring to the BIA’s decision generally and to the IJ’s decision
when necessary. Luziga v. Att’y Gen., 937 F.3d 244, 251 (3d Cir. 2019).
III
Zhu’s brief primarily challenges the IJ’s factual findings. But we are strictly
prohibited from reviewing those. Wilkinson, 131 F.4th at 139 (“[F]actual findings remain
strictly unreviewable.”); Wilkinson v. Garland, 601 U.S. 209, 222 (2024) (emphasizing
that “a court is . . . without jurisdiction to review a factual question raised in an
6 application for discretionary relief”). Accordingly, we will dismiss the petition insofar as
it challenges the IJ’s factual findings.
We will deny the petition in remaining part because substantial evidence supports
the agency’s hardship determination. Zhu’s daughter, husband, and parents would suffer
hardship upon Zhu’s removal. But it would not be “substantially beyond the ordinary
hardship that would be expected when a close family member leaves this country.”
Wilkinson, 131 F.4th at 142 (quoting In re Monreal-Aguinaga, 23 I. & N. Dec. at 62). As
the agency found, Zhu’s and Chen’s financial resources—which include the business
Chen partially owns, the five houses the couple owns, the rental income the couple
receives from renting four houses, and Zhu’s transferrable work skills—will enable the
couple to pay for E.C.’s healthcare and English-language education in China. That is so
notwithstanding E.C.’s HEDS—a condition for which E.C. does not require routine care.
The agency also found that Zhu’s parents could be cared for by their other five
adult children upon Zhu’s removal. All five of Zhu’s siblings have U.S. citizenship or
lawful permanent resident status, live in Philadelphia, and run businesses. Because Zhu’s
siblings can care for their elderly parents and help them manage their medical conditions,
Zhu’s parents will not experience exceptional and extremely unusual hardship.
Zhu makes no argument in her brief challenging the agency’s hardship
determination as to her husband, but substantial evidence supports the agency’s
determination as to him, too. Chen has only common and treatable medical conditions,
and Zhu presented no evidence that Chen needs her assistance to manage those
conditions. And while the strain worrying about Zhu and E.C. and caring for his elderly
7 mother will be a hardship, it is not substantially beyond what would be expected when a
close family member must leave this country.
* * *
For the foregoing reasons, we will dismiss the petition insofar as it raises factual
challenges and deny the petition insofar as it challenges the agency’s determination about
exceptional and extremely unusual hardship.