Garcia-Ortiz v. Bondi

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: November 25, 2025
• Docket: 24-2661
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 25 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ANABEL GARCIA-ORTIZ, No. 24-2661 Agency No. Petitioner, A201-282-689 v. MEMORANDUM* PAMELA BONDI, Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Submitted November 21, 2025** Phoenix, Arizona

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

Anabel Garcia-Ortiz petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals

(“BIA”) decision affirming an order of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying her

application for cancellation of removal. We review that decision for substantial

* 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). evidence, Gonzalez-Juarez v. Bondi, 137 F.4th 996, 1005 (9th Cir. 2025), and we

deny the petition.

To qualify for cancellation, an applicant must establish that their removal will

result in hardship to a qualifying relative that is substantially different from, or

beyond, the hardship ordinarily associated with removal from the United States. Id.

at 1005–06. “It must deviate, in the extreme, from the norm.” Id. at 1006. The

agency must consider the cumulative hardships, taking into consideration the age,

health, and circumstances of the qualifying family members. Id. (citing In re

Monreal-Aguinaga, 23 I. & N. Dec. 56, 63 (BIA 2001)). The BIA should also

consider family and social support and whether the applicant provides the sole means

of support for the qualifying relative. In re Recinas, 23 I. &. N. Dec. 467, 470–71

(BIA 2002).

Garcia-Ortiz alleged that her removal would present an exceptional and

extremely unusual hardship for her father, who was seventy-five at the time of the

hearing. Her father suffered from arthritis and kidney stones and was taking

medication for both. By the time of the hearing, Garcia-Ortiz had become the

primary caregiver for her father, but the IJ found there was an extensive family

network in the United States able and willing to care for him, including several

family members who lived in the paid-for family home in Phoenix and an able-

bodied wife who was working and living in Texas with another son. The agency

2 24-2661 also considered Garcia-Ortiz’s “extensive social and family networks” in

Mexico.

The totality of the evidence does not compel the conclusion that Garcia-Ortiz

met the high burden of demonstrating a hardship to a qualifying relative that is

substantially different from or beyond that normally resulting from removal. See

Gonzalez-Juarez, 137 F.4th at 1005–08. Although the agency did not explicitly

mention Garcia-Ortiz’s unrealistic prospects for lawful return, the agency discussed

the “evidence that was highly probative or potentially dispositive,” and we are

satisfied that it considered all hardship factors in the aggregate. See id. at 1008

(“While the BIA must consider all the evidence before it, ‘that does not mean that

the Board must individually identify and discuss every piece of evidence in the

record.’”) (quoting Hernandez v. Garland, 52 F.4th 757, 770 (9th Cir. 2022)).

PETITION DENIED.

3 24-2661