Gonzalez-Reynozo v. Bondi

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: December 31, 2025
• Docket: 24-3315
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 31 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JORGE GONZALEZ-REYNOZO, No. 24-3315 Agency No. Petitioner, A203-714-760 v. MEMORANDUM* PAMELA BONDI, Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Submitted December 31, 2025** Phoenix, Arizona

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

Jorge Gonzalez-Reynozo, 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).

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that

Gonzalez-Reynozo’s removal would not result in “exceptional and extremely

unusual hardship” to his two U.S.-citizen children. The IJ appropriately

determined that neither of Gonzalez-Reynozo’s U.S.-citizen children appears to

have a serious medical issue or special needs in school. See Fernandez v.

Mukasey, 520 F.3d 965, 966 (9th Cir. 2008) (“With regard to hardship to a child,

petitioners generally must demonstrate that they have a ‘qualifying child with very

serious health issues, or compelling special needs in school.’” (quoting In re

Monreal-Aguinaga, 23 I. & N. Dec. 56, 63 (B.I.A. 2001))). Further,

Gonzalez-Reynozo testified that his children would remain in the United States if

he were removed, and the record does not otherwise suggest that his removal

would deprive the children of access to the therapy they were receiving, healthcare,

2 24-3315 or educational opportunities. Lastly, the agency appropriately determined that the

evidence of resulting emotional and economic hardship to his children is not

“substantially beyond that which ordinarily would be expected to result from the

alien’s deportation.” Ramirez-Perez v. Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 1001, 1006 (9th Cir.

2003) (quoting Monreal-Aguinaga, 23 I. & N. Dec. at 59); Ramirez-Durazo v. INS,

794 F.2d 491, 498 (9th Cir. 1986) (“Economic disadvantage alone does not

constitute ‘extreme hardship.’” (quoting Davidson v. INS, 558 F.2d 1361, 1363

(9th Cir. 1977))). Because the record evidence does not compel a contrary

conclusion, the agency’s hardship determination must be upheld.

Duran-Rodriguez, 918 F.3d at 1028.

PETITION DENIED.

3 24-3315