Abstract
Legislators often face criticism for introducing ambiguous terms into law. The "exceptional and extremely unusual hardship" (EEUH) standard in U.S. immigration law is one such prominent example. Delving into a historical analysis, the article tracks the evolution of the EEUH standard from its incorporation in the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 to its current applications. Through a comprehensive survey across different jurisdictions such as the UK, Canada, and Australia, the paper exposes the inadequacies of the EEUH standard, emphasizing its obsolescence. Advocating for a paradigmatic reassessment, it proposes the replacement of the EEUH standard with the “best interest of the child” standard. Central to this proposal is a firm conviction in broadening judicial considerations to encompass not only immediate removal scenarios but also the critical impacts on the mental and physical well-being of citizen children. Highlighting the importance of the child's citizenship status in removal deliberations, this perspective emphasizes the increasing recognition of the inherent rights vested in citizen children. Fundamentally advocating for a transformative shift in removal cases, it proposes a more inclusive and child-centric approach grounded in the best interest of the child standard.
Recommended Citation
bin Mohsin, Momin,
THE EXCEPTIONAL UNFAIRNESS OF THE “EXCEPTIONAL AND EXTREMELY UNUSUAL HARDSHIP” TEST,
22 Santa Clara J. Int'l L.
1
(2024).
Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/scujil/vol22/iss1/1
