Javier Ramos v. Pamela Bondi

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: September 2, 2025
• Docket: 25-1313
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 25-1313 Doc: 21 Filed: 09/02/2025 Pg: 1 of 5

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 25-1313

JAVIER GARCIA RAMOS,

Petitioner,

v.

PAMELA JO BONDI,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of An Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.

Submitted: August 28, 2025 Decided: September 2, 2025

Before GREGORY, QUATTLEBAUM, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Nash J. Fayad, FAYAD LAW, P.C., Richmond, Virginia, for Petitioner. Yaakov M. Roth, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Anthony C. Payne, Assistant Director, Jeffery R. Leist, Senior Litigation Counsel, OFFICE OF IMMIGRATION LITIGATION, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 25-1313 Doc: 21 Filed: 09/02/2025 Pg: 2 of 5

PER CURIAM:

Javier Garcia-Ramos petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals

decision affirming an Immigration Judge’s denial of his application for cancellation of

removal. When the government seeks to remove a noncitizen and an Immigration Judge

finds that the noncitizen is removable, the noncitizen can seek discretionary relief from

removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229(b). Relevant here, a noncitizen may seek cancellation of

removal if the noncitizen meets certain statutory criteria, including that his removal would

result in exceptional and extreme hardship to the alien’s qualifying citizen relatives. 8

U.S.C. § 1229b(1). Here, the Immigration Judge and Board of Immigration Appeals found

that Garcia-Ramos failed to demonstrate that his removal would impose exceptional and

extremely unusual hardship on his qualifying wife, biological son, and his two stepchildren.

To establish statutory eligibility for discretionary cancellation of removal, a

petitioner must (1) have been continually present in the United States for at least 10 years;

(2) have demonstrated good moral character during that time; (3) have not committed a

disqualifying offense; and (4) show that their removal will cause “exceptional and

extremely unusual hardship” to a qualifying family member who is a United States citizen

or lawful permanent resident. 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1). The Government stipulated to all

but the fourth element. The Immigration Judge considered Garcia-Ramos’s evidence

concerning the hardship element individually and in the aggregate, including the financial

hardship Garcia-Ramos’s removal would cause financial hardship for his family;

diminished educational opportunities his children would suffer; his children’s medical

conditions; the ages of the children, and the impact of Ramos’s removal on Ramos’s wife’s

2 USCA4 Appeal: 25-1313 Doc: 21 Filed: 09/02/2025 Pg: 3 of 5

mental health. The Immigration Judge found that Ramos failed to show his wife, son, and

stepchildren would suffer exceptional and extremely unusual hardship if he were removed.

On appeal, the Board found no clear error in the Immigration Judge’s factual findings,

adopted the reasoning of the Immigration Judge, and affirmed the denial of Ramos’s

application for cancellation of removal on the basis that Ramos failed to demonstrate the

statutorily required hardship.

Our jurisdiction over decisions of the Board of Immigration Appeals is limited. See

8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i). Although we may not review an Immigration Judge’s factual

findings, we may review questions of law arising from decisions denying discretionary

relief. Wilkinson v. Garland, 601 U.S. 209, 225 (2024); Cortes v. Garland, 105 F.4th 124,

132 (4th Cir. 2024). This jurisdiction extends to mixed questions of law and fact, including

whether “settled facts meet the legal standard.” Cortes, 105 F.4th at 132.

When the Board of Immigration Appeals affirms and adopts the Immigration

Judge’s decision, this Court reviews the decisions of both the Immigration Judge and the

Board. Cabrera v. Garland, 21 F.4th 878, 883 (4th Cir. 2022). Although the standard of

review will depend on whether a case presents a primarily factual or primarily legal

question, we review the Immigration Judge and the Board’s rulings on this issue with

deference. Cortes, 105 F.4th at 133-34. We need not resolve the amount of deference

owed here because regardless of the standard applied, “the results of our analysis do not

differ.” Id. at 134.

For hardship to be exceptional and extremely unusual, it must be “substantially

beyond the ordinary hardship that would be expected when a close family member is

3 USCA4 Appeal: 25-1313 Doc: 21 Filed: 09/02/2025 Pg: 4 of 5

removed.” Gonzalez Galvan v. Garland, 6 F.4th 552, 561 (4th Cir. 2021) (cleaned up),

abrogated in part on other grounds by Wilkinson, 604 U.S. 209. In assessing hardship,

relevant factors include the qualifying relative’s age, health, length of residence in the

United States, and family and community ties in the United States and abroad. See Matter

of Monreal, 23 I. & N. Dec. 56, 63 (B.I.A. 2001); Matter of Andazola-Rivas, 23 I. & N.

Dec. 319, 319–22 (B.I.A. 2002); Matter of Recinas, 23 I. & N. Dec. 467, 468–70 (B.I.A.

2002).

The Immigration Judge found that Garcia-Ramos could find work in Mexico to

continue providing financial support to his family. The Immigration Judge further found

Garcia-Ramos’s son and stepchild may suffer anxiety and hardship if he was removed, but

nothing in the record showed his removal would cause extreme or unusual hardship with

regards to their medical conditions or education. Specifically, Garcia-Ramos’s son and

stepson’s asthma and breathing issues and his step-daughter’s eczema were all controlled

with treatment. The Immigration Judge further found that Garcia-Ramos’s wife would

face difficulties if Garcia-Ramos were removed, but none that rose to the level of an

extreme and unusual hardship. We agree with the Board that, on the facts found, the

Immigration Judge did not err by concluding that while Garcia-Ramos’s family would

suffer difficulties, the hardship is not so far beyond the hardship inherent in the removal of

a parent or husband as to be exceptional and extremely unusual.

We therefore find no error in the decisions. For the reasons set forth above, the

petition to review the order of the Board of Immigration Appeals is denied. We dispense

4 USCA4 Appeal: 25-1313 Doc: 21 Filed: 09/02/2025 Pg: 5 of 5

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the

materials before this court and argument would not aid in the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED