Barrera v. Bondi

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: July 22, 2025
• Docket: 22-1052
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 22 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ANNA PATRICIA BARRERA, No. 22-1052 Agency No. Petitioner, A207-421-953 v. MEMORANDUM* PAMELA BONDI, Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Submitted July 15, 2025**

Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.

Anna Patricia Barrera, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an

immigration judge’s decision denying her application for cancellation of removal.

We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence

* 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). whether the agency erred in applying the exceptional and extremely unusual

hardship standard to a given set of facts. Gonzalez-Juarez v. Bondi, 137 F.4th 996,

1003 (9th Cir. 2025). We review de novo questions of law and constitutional

claims. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny

the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that Barrera has not

established facts that show exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to her

qualifying relatives. See Gonzalez-Juarez, 137 F.4th at 1006 (petitioner must show

“‘hardship that is substantially different from, or beyond, that which would

normally be expected from [petitioner’s] deportation’” (quoting Matter of

Monreal-Aguinaga, 23 I. & N. Dec. 56, 65 (BIA 2001)).

Barrera’s claim that the agency violated due process by failing to consider

hardship to all qualifying relatives cumulatively fails because she has not shown

error. See Padilla-Martinez v. Holder, 770 F.3d 825, 830 (9th Cir. 2014) (“To

prevail on a due-process claim, a petitioner must demonstrate both a violation of

rights and prejudice.”).

The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

2 22-1052