Ayala-Lara v. Bondi

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: November 20, 2025
• Docket: 22-841
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 20 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

REYES AYALA-LARA, No. 22-841 Agency No. Petitioner, A205-404-261 v. MEMORANDUM*

PAMELA BONDI, Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted November 17, 2025** Phoenix, Arizona

Before: N.R. SMITH, HURWITZ, and COLLINS, Circuit Judges.

Reyes Ayala-Lara, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the

decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), dismissing his appeal of the

denial by an immigration judge (IJ) of cancellation of removal. Citing Matter of

Burbano, 20 I. & N. Dec. 872 (BIA 1994), the BIA adopted the IJ’s determination

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). that Ayala-Lara failed to establish exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to a

qualifying relative. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(D). We review this determination

for “substantial evidence.” Gonzalez-Juarez v. Bondi, 137 F.4th 996, 1005 (9th Cir.

2025). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition for

review.1

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that the hardship to

Ayala-Lara’s qualifying daughter would not rise to the level of “exceptional and

extremely unusual,” because it would not be “substantially different from or

beyond that which would ordinarily be expected” from a parent’s removal from the

United States. Wilkinson v. Garland, 601 U.S. 209, 215 (2024). The BIA did not

err in concluding that even if Ayala-Lara’s removal would cause economic

hardship and a lower standard of living for his daughter, those considerations

would not satisfy the standard for relief under § 1229b(b)(1)(D). See Cabrera-

Alvarez v. Gonzales, 423 F.3d 1006, 1013 (9th Cir. 2005) (noting that “Petitioner

demonstrated sadly common hardships that can result when an alien parent is

removed and must make the heart-wrenching decision between family unity and

the children’s ability to enjoy the educational and economic advantages of living in

1 Ayala-Lara requests that we remand the case to the BIA for it to consider whether the reopening of his proceedings following administrative closure was warranted. Ayala-Lara did not exhaust this issue before the BIA. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1). The government objects to his failure to exhaust; therefore, we decline to address it. See Umana-Escobar v. Garland, 69 F.4th 544, 550 (9th Cir. 2023).

2 22-841 the United States”); see also Wilkinson, 601 U.S. at 225 (“Only the question

whether those established facts satisfy the statutory eligibility standard is subject to

judicial review.”).

PETITION DENIED.

3 22-841