Ayala-Laureano v. Bondi

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: December 17, 2025
• Docket: 22-1849
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 17 2025

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELIAS AYALA-LAUREANO, No. 22-1849 Petitioner, Agency No. A202-069-338 v. MEMORANDUM* PAMELA BONDI, Attorney General, Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted November 20, 2025** Phoenix, Arizona

Before: HAWKINS, HURWITZ, and COLLINS, Circuit Judges. Elias Ayala-Laureano, a citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of a decision

of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) upholding an order of an

Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying his application for cancellation of removal. We

have jurisdiction under § 242 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C.

§ 1252. We deny the petition.

In upholding the denial of cancellation of removal, the BIA held that Ayala-

Laureano had “not shown that his removal to Mexico will result in exceptional and

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes that this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See FED. R. APP. P. 34(a)(2)(C). extremely unusual hardship” to his three U.S.-citizen children. See 8 U.S.C.

§ 1229b(b)(1)(D) (stating that, to qualify for a discretionary grant of cancellation

of removal, an alien must establish, inter alia, that “removal would result in

exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to the alien’s spouse, parent, or child,

who is a citizen of the United States or an alien lawfully admitted for permanent

residence”). We review this ruling for substantial evidence. Gonzalez-Juarez v.

Bondi, 137 F.4th 996, 1005 (9th Cir. 2025). Under that standard, we must uphold

the BIA’s determination that the facts as found by the agency do not establish the

requisite hardship “unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to

conclude to the contrary.” Id. at 1002 (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B)).

However, we do not “have jurisdiction over the IJ’s finding of ‘facts underlying

any determination on cancellation of removal,’ which ‘remain unreviewable.’” Id.

at 1000 n.2 (quoting Wilkinson v. Garland, 601 U.S. 209, 225 (2024)).

The BIA reasonably concluded that the hardships faced by Ayala-

Laureano’s children would not be “exceptional and extremely unusual.” Although

Ayala-Laureano pointed to his children’s health circumstances, the IJ found that

his younger daughter seldom uses an inhaler in warm weather, his son does not

require medical treatment for his stomach pain, and his children could obtain

healthcare services in Mexico. The IJ further found that Ayala-Laureano’s

children, if taken with him to Mexico, would live with a grandparent and extended

2 family, “just like they live with family here.” Ayala-Laureano acknowledges that

the agency considered these factors, but he contends that it failed to consider “the

children’s strong family ties in the United States, access to education, lower

standard of living, dangerous country conditions, or the emotional toll on the

children from the separation from family members in the United States.” We

disagree.

Contrary to Ayala-Laureano’s assertion that the IJ failed to consider

education, standard of living, and country conditions, the IJ found “no evidence

that living in Mexico is inherently more harmful or disadvantaged . . . as opposed

to living in the United States.” Regarding the children’s family ties and emotional

hardship, the IJ recognized that the children lived “off and on” with their

grandmother and their mother “has some psychological problems and

schizophrenia.” The IJ did not fail to consider these factors, and the BIA likewise

reasonably concluded that the “financial and emotional hardship[s]” to Ayala-

Laureano’s children were “not ‘substantially’ beyond the ordinary hardship that

would be expected when a close family member leaves the country.” See

Gonzalez-Juarez, 137 F.4th at 1007 (holding that the hardship “must be

‘substantially beyond that which would ordinarily be expected to result from the

alien’s deportation’” (citation omitted)); see also id. at 1006 (stating that “‘[a]

lower standard of living or adverse country conditions in the country of return . . .

3 generally will be insufficient’” to establish the requisite hardship (citation

omitted)).

Accordingly, we conclude that the BIA properly upheld the IJ’s decision to

deny cancellation of removal.

PETITION DENIED.