NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION File Name: 25a0508n.06
Case No. 24-3979
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
FILED Oct 30, 2025 ) ENZO LEOMIR CANACA RODRIGUEZ, KELLY L. STEPHENS, Clerk ) Petitioner, ) ) ON PETITION FOR REVIEW v. ) FROM THE UNITED STATES ) BOARD OF IMMIGRATION PAMELA BONDI, Attorney General, ) APPEALS Respondent. ) ) OPINION
Before: STRANCH, BUSH, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
DAVIS, Circuit Judge. Petitioner Enzo Leomir Canaca Rodriguez seeks review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ order affirming an immigration judge’s denial of his application
for cancellation of removal. We deny the petition for review.
I.
Petitioner Enzo Leomir Canaca Rodriguez, a native and citizen of Honduras, has lived in
the United States since 2001 and has not left the country since 2005. In 2017, Canaca applied for
asylum. In mid-January 2020, Canaca received a Notice to Appear, which placed him in removal
proceedings. In his written pleadings, Canaca admitted the factual allegations in his Notice to
Appear and conceded the charge of removability. The immigration judge (“IJ”) sustained the
charge and found him removable. Canaca applied for cancellation of removal and withdrew his No. 24-3979, Canaca Rodriguez v. Bondi
application for asylum. He then testified in support of his application for cancellation of removal
in July 2022.
Canaca testified that he is married with two children. His wife, Maria, is from Mexico and
has Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (“DACA”) status, and his two children, Zoey and
Enzo, are United States citizens. At the time of the merits hearing, Zoey and Enzo were 7 and 5
years old, respectively, and Zoey had been in school for one year while Enzo was due to start in
August. Both children are enrolled in a private Christian school, for which Canaca pays. Zoey
participates in gymnastics, ice-skating, and piano lessons, and Enzo participates in gymnastics,
ice-skating, and soccer. Zoey and Enzo speak both English and Spanish, and they have no health
or medical-related issues.
Canaca owns a construction company called Bethel Construction, which employs six to
nine people, including his wife. Maria works as the company’s accountant. Canaca and his wife
receive a monthly salary of $8,000, and Canaca has about $1.5 million in assets, including real
estate investments.
Canaca testified that if he were to return to Honduras, his children, who have never been
to Honduras, and his wife would relocate with him. Canaca has family in Honduras, as his father
and his four siblings reside there. Canaca expressed concern about the danger of living in
Honduras because his cousin was murdered and one of his brothers was shot in the leg.
Canaca believes his children would not adapt to living in Honduras because they have
never been there before, and he believes the transition would cause them emotional and
psychological harm. He explained that the children would not have the same educational
opportunities in Honduras as they would in the United States. Canaca also believes that it would
-2- No. 24-3979, Canaca Rodriguez v. Bondi
be difficult for him to find employment in Honduras because of his age, lack of experience, and
high unemployment rates.
At the end of Canaca’s testimony, the government stipulated to three of the elements for
cancellation of removal, namely that Canaca (1) had satisfied the physical presence requirement,
(2) had good moral character, and (3) had no disqualifying criminal history, but the government
disputed that Canaca met the exceptional and extremely unusual hardship requirement. In addition
to his testimony, Canaca submitted other evidence, including, as relevant here, articles regarding
country conditions in Honduras, which discussed, inter alia, the impact of gangs on youth, the
quality of the education system, and the emotional effects of a parent’s deportation on children.
After the hearing, the IJ issued an oral decision denying Canaca’s application for
cancellation of removal, finding that Canaca had not demonstrated that his removal would result
in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to his U.S. citizen children. The Board of
Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirmed without opinion. Canaca now petitions this court for
review.
II.
To be eligible for cancellation of removal, Canaca must establish that (1) he has been
physically present in the United States for a continuous period of at least ten years, (2) he is a
person of good moral character, (3) he has not been convicted of a qualifying offense, and (4) his
“removal would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” to a qualifying United
States citizen or legal permanent resident. 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1). Where, as here, the BIA affirms
the IJ’s decision without opinion, we review the IJ’s decision directly. See Diaz-Zanatta v. Holder,
558 F.3d 450, 454 (6th Cir. 2009).
-3- No. 24-3979, Canaca Rodriguez v. Bondi
This court has jurisdiction to review the IJ’s hardship determination for cancellation of
removal, which presents a mixed question of law and fact. See Wilkinson v. Garland, 601 U.S.
209, 212 (2024); Singh v. Rosen, 984 F.3d 1142, 1154 (6th Cir. 2021). We, however, “lack
jurisdiction over factual findings undergirding the conclusion that an immigrant’s removal would
not cause ‘exceptional and extremely unusual hardship’ to a relative.” Hernandez v. Garland, 59
F.4th 762, 767 (6th Cir. 2023) (quoting Singh, 984 F.3d at 1149–50, 1154–55). Our review is thus
limited to applying the facts as found by the IJ to the legal standard. See Wilkinson, 601 U.S. at
225.
The question of what standard of review applies to the hardship inquiry remains unresolved
in this circuit. See Moctezuma-Reyes v. Garland, 124 F.4th 416, 423 (6th Cir. 2024); Trinidad-
Contreras v. Bondi, No. 22-3352, 2025 WL 2732495, at *3 (6th Cir. Sep. 25, 2025). The Supreme
Court has instructed that the review must be “deferential.” Wilkinson, 601 U.S. at 225. The extent
of that deference, however, is an open question. Although the government asks the court to adopt
the substantial evidence standard of 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B), the court need not decide the issue,
as Canaca cannot prevail under any level of deference.
III.
At issue is whether the IJ erred in concluding that Canaca’s removal would not result in
exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to his U.S. citizen children. For the hardship to be
exceptional and extremely unusual, it must be “rare” and “well outside the norm.” Moctezuma-
Reyes, 124 F.4th at 421–22. In other words, the hardship sustained by the qualifying relatives
must be “significantly different from or greater than the hardship that a deported alien’s family
normally experiences.” Id. at 422. Typical and expected hardships may include “the loss of
financial prospects, separation from loved ones, and reduced educational opportunities.” Id. The
-4- No. 24-3979, Canaca Rodriguez v. Bondi
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION File Name: 25a0508n.06
Case No. 24-3979
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
FILED Oct 30, 2025 ) ENZO LEOMIR CANACA RODRIGUEZ, KELLY L. STEPHENS, Clerk ) Petitioner, ) ) ON PETITION FOR REVIEW v. ) FROM THE UNITED STATES ) BOARD OF IMMIGRATION PAMELA BONDI, Attorney General, ) APPEALS Respondent. ) ) OPINION
Before: STRANCH, BUSH, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
DAVIS, Circuit Judge. Petitioner Enzo Leomir Canaca Rodriguez seeks review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ order affirming an immigration judge’s denial of his application
for cancellation of removal. We deny the petition for review.
I.
Petitioner Enzo Leomir Canaca Rodriguez, a native and citizen of Honduras, has lived in
the United States since 2001 and has not left the country since 2005. In 2017, Canaca applied for
asylum. In mid-January 2020, Canaca received a Notice to Appear, which placed him in removal
proceedings. In his written pleadings, Canaca admitted the factual allegations in his Notice to
Appear and conceded the charge of removability. The immigration judge (“IJ”) sustained the
charge and found him removable. Canaca applied for cancellation of removal and withdrew his No. 24-3979, Canaca Rodriguez v. Bondi
application for asylum. He then testified in support of his application for cancellation of removal
in July 2022.
Canaca testified that he is married with two children. His wife, Maria, is from Mexico and
has Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (“DACA”) status, and his two children, Zoey and
Enzo, are United States citizens. At the time of the merits hearing, Zoey and Enzo were 7 and 5
years old, respectively, and Zoey had been in school for one year while Enzo was due to start in
August. Both children are enrolled in a private Christian school, for which Canaca pays. Zoey
participates in gymnastics, ice-skating, and piano lessons, and Enzo participates in gymnastics,
ice-skating, and soccer. Zoey and Enzo speak both English and Spanish, and they have no health
or medical-related issues.
Canaca owns a construction company called Bethel Construction, which employs six to
nine people, including his wife. Maria works as the company’s accountant. Canaca and his wife
receive a monthly salary of $8,000, and Canaca has about $1.5 million in assets, including real
estate investments.
Canaca testified that if he were to return to Honduras, his children, who have never been
to Honduras, and his wife would relocate with him. Canaca has family in Honduras, as his father
and his four siblings reside there. Canaca expressed concern about the danger of living in
Honduras because his cousin was murdered and one of his brothers was shot in the leg.
Canaca believes his children would not adapt to living in Honduras because they have
never been there before, and he believes the transition would cause them emotional and
psychological harm. He explained that the children would not have the same educational
opportunities in Honduras as they would in the United States. Canaca also believes that it would
-2- No. 24-3979, Canaca Rodriguez v. Bondi
be difficult for him to find employment in Honduras because of his age, lack of experience, and
high unemployment rates.
At the end of Canaca’s testimony, the government stipulated to three of the elements for
cancellation of removal, namely that Canaca (1) had satisfied the physical presence requirement,
(2) had good moral character, and (3) had no disqualifying criminal history, but the government
disputed that Canaca met the exceptional and extremely unusual hardship requirement. In addition
to his testimony, Canaca submitted other evidence, including, as relevant here, articles regarding
country conditions in Honduras, which discussed, inter alia, the impact of gangs on youth, the
quality of the education system, and the emotional effects of a parent’s deportation on children.
After the hearing, the IJ issued an oral decision denying Canaca’s application for
cancellation of removal, finding that Canaca had not demonstrated that his removal would result
in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to his U.S. citizen children. The Board of
Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirmed without opinion. Canaca now petitions this court for
review.
II.
To be eligible for cancellation of removal, Canaca must establish that (1) he has been
physically present in the United States for a continuous period of at least ten years, (2) he is a
person of good moral character, (3) he has not been convicted of a qualifying offense, and (4) his
“removal would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” to a qualifying United
States citizen or legal permanent resident. 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1). Where, as here, the BIA affirms
the IJ’s decision without opinion, we review the IJ’s decision directly. See Diaz-Zanatta v. Holder,
558 F.3d 450, 454 (6th Cir. 2009).
-3- No. 24-3979, Canaca Rodriguez v. Bondi
This court has jurisdiction to review the IJ’s hardship determination for cancellation of
removal, which presents a mixed question of law and fact. See Wilkinson v. Garland, 601 U.S.
209, 212 (2024); Singh v. Rosen, 984 F.3d 1142, 1154 (6th Cir. 2021). We, however, “lack
jurisdiction over factual findings undergirding the conclusion that an immigrant’s removal would
not cause ‘exceptional and extremely unusual hardship’ to a relative.” Hernandez v. Garland, 59
F.4th 762, 767 (6th Cir. 2023) (quoting Singh, 984 F.3d at 1149–50, 1154–55). Our review is thus
limited to applying the facts as found by the IJ to the legal standard. See Wilkinson, 601 U.S. at
225.
The question of what standard of review applies to the hardship inquiry remains unresolved
in this circuit. See Moctezuma-Reyes v. Garland, 124 F.4th 416, 423 (6th Cir. 2024); Trinidad-
Contreras v. Bondi, No. 22-3352, 2025 WL 2732495, at *3 (6th Cir. Sep. 25, 2025). The Supreme
Court has instructed that the review must be “deferential.” Wilkinson, 601 U.S. at 225. The extent
of that deference, however, is an open question. Although the government asks the court to adopt
the substantial evidence standard of 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B), the court need not decide the issue,
as Canaca cannot prevail under any level of deference.
III.
At issue is whether the IJ erred in concluding that Canaca’s removal would not result in
exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to his U.S. citizen children. For the hardship to be
exceptional and extremely unusual, it must be “rare” and “well outside the norm.” Moctezuma-
Reyes, 124 F.4th at 421–22. In other words, the hardship sustained by the qualifying relatives
must be “significantly different from or greater than the hardship that a deported alien’s family
normally experiences.” Id. at 422. Typical and expected hardships may include “the loss of
financial prospects, separation from loved ones, and reduced educational opportunities.” Id. The
-4- No. 24-3979, Canaca Rodriguez v. Bondi
court must consider all hardship factors “in the aggregate to determine whether the qualifying
relative will suffer hardship that rises to the level of exceptional and extremely unusual.”
Wilkinson, 601 U.S. at 215 (internal quotation marks omitted). The exceptional and extremely
unusual hardship standard is an “onerous standard,” Valdez-Arriaga v. Barr, 778 F. App’x 380,
383 (6th Cir. 2019), that “must be limited to truly exceptional situations,” Moctezuma-Reyes, 124
F.4th at 424 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
Canaca argues that the IJ failed to consider evidence in the record in its assessment of
hardship. As an initial matter, the IJ “reviewed, considered, and g[a]ve[] the appropriate weight”
to “[a]ll exhibits that were moved into evidence . . . even if not specifically mentioned in [the] oral
decision.” Administrative Record (“A.R.”) at 53. “The agency’s decision is entitled to a
presumption of regularity and thus a presumption that the evidence was considered.” Aoraha v.
Gonzales, 209 F. App’x 473, 476 (6th Cir. 2006). Accordingly, the agency “need not, and should
not, ‘mention every piece of evidence before it.’” Navarro v. Holder, 505 F. App’x 441, 447 (6th
Cir. 2012) (quoting Precaj v. Holder, 491 F. App’x 663, 669 (6th Cir. 2012)).
Canaca first points to evidence he claims the IJ failed to consider related to the impact of
gangs on youth in Honduras, particularly as it relates to violence against children, the loss of safe
places for children to play, and danger faced by youth on the way to school. The IJ, however,
acknowledged that “[t]here is some evidence related to the impact gang activities [have] on safety
and education.” A.R. at 56. It nonetheless concluded that “the evidence is insufficient to establish
that the Respondent and his family could not settle safely somewhere in Honduras.” Id.
Canaca also points to evidence regarding the quality of the education system in Honduras.
Although the IJ did not specifically discuss the article that Canaca cites, which it need not do, see
Navarro, 505 F. App’x at 447, the IJ did consider educational issues. The IJ noted that Canaca
-5- No. 24-3979, Canaca Rodriguez v. Bondi
had “not researched schools” and that although there was “evidence related to the impact gang
activities [have] on safety and education,” that evidence was insufficient to show that he “and his
family could not settle safely somewhere in Honduras.” A.R. at 56. Even if the IJ had failed to
consider educational issues, “diminished educational options alone do not establish the required
hardship,” and Canaca “did not show that his children would be deprived of all schooling or of an
opportunity to obtain any education.” Singh, 984 F.3d at 1154–55 (internal quotation marks and
citation omitted).
Next, Canaca highlights a study showing how the deportation of a parent impacts the risk
of mental health conditions in a child. The IJ considered how the children would be “emotionally
impacted by being uprooted from the United States and taken to Honduras, a country they’ve never
visited,” and the IJ further acknowledged that Canaca had “established that the children would
detrimentally suffer on some level.” A.R. at 55–56. In any event, “emotional strains are the typical
results of removal; they aren’t rare.” Moctezuma-Reyes, 124 F.4th at 423.
Canaca contends that the IJ “failed to recognize [his] lack of experience in the construction
industry in Honduras, lack of employment as well as crime and violence that would make [him]
face uncertainty in finding employment in Honduras.” ECF No. 16, PageID 27. Regardless of
whether the IJ considered this evidence, Canaca “hasn’t shown that he won’t be able to work in
[Honduras], even if getting a job there may prove difficult.” Moctezuma-Reyes, 124 F.4th at 423.
The IJ further found that Canaca’s “significant assets will aid the family in resettling in Honduras
and likely mitigate many of the potential effects of such a transition.” A.R. at 56; See Barrios-
Ortega v. Garland, No. 23-3292, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 6675, at *6 (6th Cir. Mar. 20, 2024)
(declining to overturn the agency’s determination of lack of exceptional and extremely unusual
-6- No. 24-3979, Canaca Rodriguez v. Bondi
hardship where petitioner owned “more than $70,000 in assets, which . . . can be liquated [sic] to
finance a new life in Mexico”).
Finally, Canaca argues that the IJ “focused on the factors individually and failed to engage
in a cumulative analysis of all relevant factors together.” ECF No. 16, PageID 28. The IJ, in
describing the standard, noted that “[a]ll relevant factors, even if not extreme individually, must
be considered in the aggregate in determining whether exceptional and extremely unusual hardship
exists.” A.R. at 54. The IJ ultimately reached its conclusion after “[c]onsidering all hardships to
the Respondent’s qualifying relatives in the aggregate.” Id. at 56 (emphasis added).
IV.
For these reasons, we deny the petition for review.
-7-