Constancio-Morales v. Bondi

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: November 20, 2025
• Docket: 23-2163
• Status: Unpublished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NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 20 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CECILIO CONSTANCIO-MORALES, No. 23-2163 Agency No. Petitioner, A076-721-168 v. MEMORANDUM* PAMELA BONDI, Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Submitted November 18, 2025** Phoenix, Arizona

Before: MURGUIA, Chief Judge, and HURWITZ and COLLINS, Circuit Judges.

Cecilio Constancio-Morales, 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.

* 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). § 1252. See Wilkinson v. Garland, 601 U.S. 209, 217 (2024) (“[T]he application

of the exceptional and extremely unusual hardship standard to a given set of facts

is reviewable as a question of law under § 1252(a)(2)(D).”). We deny the petition.

1. The BIA affirmed the denial of Constancio-Morales’s claim for

cancellation of removal because Constancio-Morales failed to demonstrate that his

eight U.S. citizen children would experience “exceptional and extremely unusual

hardship” upon his removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b). We review the agency’s

hardship determination for substantial evidence. Gonzalez-Juarez v. Bondi, 137

F.4th 996, 1003 (9th Cir. 2025). Under that standard, the agency’s determination

is “conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude

to the contrary.” Id. at 1002 (citation omitted). However, “the IJ’s finding[s] of

‘facts underlying any determination on cancellation of removal,’ . . . ‘remain

unreviewable.’” Id. at 1000 n.2 (quoting Wilkinson, 601 U.S. at 225).

Constancio-Morales argues that the BIA disregarded evidence of the

financial difficulties and psychological hardship that his family would experience

due to his removal. But “[t]he ‘exceptional and extremely unusual hardship’

standard is a very demanding one.” Garcia v. Holder, 621 F.3d 906, 913 (9th Cir.

2010). To constitute exceptional and extremely unusual hardship, the hardship

must be “out of the ordinary and exceedingly uncommon.” Gonzalez-Juarez, 137

F.4th at 1006. In evaluating whether a noncitizen meets this standard, the IJ “must

2 23-2163 consider a range of factors, including the age and health of the qualifying family

member.” Wilkinson, 601 U.S. at 215.

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s decision that Constancio-Morales

did not demonstrate exceptional and extremely unusual hardship. Constancio-

Morales argues that because he is the breadwinner, the family would not be able to

make ends meet without his support. However, the IJ found that Constancio-

Morales’s family lives in a home that he owns and Constancio-Morales has a

vehicle that he owns outright and can be sold. Constancio-Morales’s two oldest

children live at home, are gainfully employed, and help support the family.

Additionally, his eight U.S. citizen children are healthy and receive government

healthcare and food assistance benefits. While Constancio-Morales contends that

his wife could not go back to work and take care of the younger children at the

same time, the IJ found that there was no evidence that she “could not reenter the

workforce and continue to contribute economically to the home,” and we are

bound by that finding under Wilkinson. See 601 U.S. at 223. The IJ also found

that Constancio-Morales’s two oldest children could help support the family and

that his family could live with his brother-in-law if needed.

Similarly, although Constancio-Morales’s children would suffer emotional

harm should he be removed, a reasonable adjudicator would not be compelled to

conclude that any harm would be “‘substantially different from, or beyond, that

3 23-2163 which would normally be expected from the deportation’ of a ‘close family

member.’” Wilkinson, 601 U.S. at 222 (brackets omitted) (quoting In re Monreal-

Aguinaga, 23 I. & N. Dec. 56, 65 (BIA 2001)). And contrary to Constancio-

Morales’s assertion, the IJ acknowledged that Constancio-Morales’s removal

would have an emotional impact on the children but recognized that nothing in the

record showed that they would be unable to visit him in Mexico. We therefore

DENY Constancio-Morales’s petition for review of the agency’s denial of

cancellation of removal.

2. Constancio-Morales also contends that the agency abused its discretion

by denying him post-conclusion voluntary departure. However, we “lack

jurisdiction to review denials of voluntary departure.” Tovar-Landin v. Ashcroft,

361 F.3d 1164, 1166 (9th Cir. 2004); see 8 U.S.C. § 1229c(f) (“No court shall have

jurisdiction over an appeal from denial of a request for an order of voluntary

departure” at the conclusion of proceedings). We therefore DISMISS Constancio-

Morales’s petition for review of the BIA’s discretionary denial of his request for

post-conclusion voluntary departure.

PETITION DENIED in part and DISMISSED in part.

4 23-2163