De Los Santos-Ocana v. Bondi

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: October 22, 2025
• Docket: 24-3029
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 22 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ALAIN DE LOS SANTOS-OCANA, No. 24-3029 Agency No. Petitioner, A216-376-200 v. MEMORANDUM* PAMELA BONDI, Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Submitted October 20, 2025** Phoenix, Arizona

Before: TALLMAN, BADE, and LEE, Circuit Judges.

Alain De Los Santos-Ocana, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for

review of the denial of his application for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C.

§ 1229b(b)(1). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the

petition.

* 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). Where, as here, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) expresses

agreement with the reasoning of the Immigration Judge (IJ), we review both

decisions. Kumar v. Holder, 728 F.3d 993, 998 (9th Cir. 2013). The agency’s

determination of “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” under 8 U.S.C.

§ 1229b(b)(1)(D) is reviewed for substantial evidence. Gonzalez-Juarez v. Bondi,

137 F.4th 996, 1002–03 (9th Cir. 2025). “Under this standard, we must uphold the

agency determination unless the evidence compels a contrary conclusion.”

Duran-Rodriguez v. Barr, 918 F.3d 1025, 1028 (9th Cir. 2019).

1. De Los Santos-Ocana argues that the agency failed to conduct a

cumulative analysis of all relevant hardship factors. However, the record reflects

that the agency considered the hardship factors individually and cumulatively. See

Salcido-Salcido v. INS, 138 F.3d 1292, 1293 n.1 (9th Cir. 1998) (per curiam); In re

Gonzalez Recinas, 23 I. & N. Dec. 467, 472 (B.I.A. 2002) (explaining that the

hardship factors must be assessed “in their totality”—“a ‘cumulative’ analysis”).

Specifically, the agency considered the potential emotional, financial, and

health-related burdens to De Los Santos-Ocana’s qualifying relatives—his three

U.S.-citizen children—both individually and cumulatively before determining the

evidence did not surpass the ordinary hardship associated with the removal of a

close relative. See Ramirez-Perez v. Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 1001, 1006 (9th Cir. 2003)

(explaining that a noncitizen must demonstrate hardship “substantially beyond that

2 24-3029 which ordinarily would be expected to result from the alien’s deportation” (quoting

In re Monreal-Aguinaga, 23 I. & N. Dec. 56, 59 (B.I.A. 2001))).

2. Moreover, substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination

that De Los Santos-Ocana’s removal would not result in “exceptional and

extremely unusual hardship” to his children. The agency observed that De Los

Santos-Ocana’s children were healthy and would continue to have access to public

education and healthcare in the United States. And although De Los

Santos-Ocana’s wife suffered from a thyroid condition, there was no evidence

suggesting that her condition would worsen or could not be accommodated such

that the children would suffer exceptional and extremely unusual hardship

following his removal. The agency also considered De Los Santos-Ocana’s steady

employment history and testimony that he would continue to financially support

his children and wife from Mexico. And finally, the agency determined that De

Los Santos-Ocana’s removal would not cause emotional hardship beyond that

which would normally result from the removal of a close family member. The

record evidence does not compel the conclusion that any hardship faced by De Los

Santos-Ocana’s children would be “significantly different from or greater than the

hardship that a deported alien’s family normally experiences.” Gonzalez-Juarez,

137 F.4th at 1006 (citation omitted). Accordingly, the agency’s hardship

determination must be upheld. Duran-Rodriguez, 918 F.3d at 1028.

3 24-3029 PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

4 24-3029