Gonzalez Gonzalez v. Bondi

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 14 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

FELIPE GONZALEZ-GONZALEZ, No. 23-1162 Agency No. Petitioner, A074-797-181 v. MEMORANDUM*

PAMELA BONDI, Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Submitted September 17, 2025** Phoenix, Arizona

Before: COLLINS, MENDOZA, and DESAI, Circuit Judges.

Felipe Gonzalez-Gonzalez (“petitioner”), a native and citizen of Mexico,

petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision affirming

the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his application for cancellation of removal.

Petitioner argues that his removal would cause “exceptional and extremely unusual”

* 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). hardship to his stepson because it would interfere with his stepson’s allergy

treatments, hinder petitioner’s ability to pay for the treatments, and be detrimental

to his stepson’s health. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny the

petition.

We review the agency’s hardship determination 1 for substantial evidence.

Gonzalez-Juarez v. Bondi, 137 F.4th 996, 1003 (9th Cir. 2025). Under that standard,

we may not “reweigh the evidence” and “must uphold the agency determination

unless the evidence compels a contrary conclusion.” Singh v. INS, 134 F.3d 962, 969

n.14 (9th Cir. 1998); Duran-Rodriguez v. Barr, 918 F.3d 1025, 1028 (9th Cir. 2019).

Our review of the agency’s hardship determination is deferential “because this

mixed question is primarily factual.” Wilkinson v. Garland, 601 U.S. 209, 212, 225

& n.4 (2024) (citation modified).

1. Petitioner contends that the IJ and BIA failed to consider “in the

aggregate” the hardship his stepson would experience upon removal. First, Petitioner

argues the IJ failed to consider his stepson’s allergies because the IJ stated that the

1 “A nonpermanent resident is statutorily eligible for cancellation of removal if four elements are met: (A) physical presence for ten years; (B) good moral character; (C) no conviction for certain categories of crimes, including crimes involving moral turpitude; and (D) exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” to a qualifying relative. Lemus-Escobar v. Bondi, 140 F.4th 1079, 1087 (9th Cir. 2025) (citing 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)). The only criterion at issue in this court is whether petitioner has established his removal would cause “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” to his stepson.

2 23-1162 stepson suffered from “asthma,” a condition that he does not have. But the IJ’s

mention of “asthma” rather than allergies appears to be a scrivener’s error, not a

legal one, and petitioner himself ignored the obvious mistake in his brief before the

BIA. At bottom, the IJ considered that the stepson has a medical condition and

receives treatment for it. And, in any event, the BIA specifically considered the

stepson’s “allergies.”

2. Petitioner further contends the agency failed to adequately consider the

impact of his removal on his stepson’s ongoing allergy treatments as well as his

inability to pay for the treatments in Mexico. But the BIA found that petitioner failed

to establish his stepson would be unable to receive the treatments in Mexico. See

Matter of J-J-G-, 27 I. & N. Dec. 808, 813 (B.I.A. 2020) (“Evidence that a qualifying

relative will experience . . . a lower standard of medical care[] will be insufficient in

itself to support a finding of exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” (citation

modified)). The agency also found “no evidence” that either petitioner or his wife

would be unable to find work in Mexico—which addresses petitioner’s financial

concerns. See Gonzalez-Juarez, 137 F.4th at 1008. The agency thus considered the

hardship factors in the aggregate, and the record does not compel the conclusion that

petitioner’s stepson would experience “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship”

upon petitioner’s removal. See id. at 1006.

The petition is DENIED.

3 23-1162