Martinez-Juarez v. Bondi

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: November 21, 2025
• Docket: 23-1267
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 21 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

EMMANUEL MARTINEZ-JUAREZ, No. 23-1267 Agency No. Petitioner, A202-069-431 v. MEMORANDUM* PAMELA BONDI, Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Submitted November 19, 2025** Phoenix, Arizona

Before: HAWKINS, HURWITZ, and COLLINS, Circuit Judges.

Emmanuel Martinez-Juarez seeks review of a decision by the Board of

Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing his appeal of the decision of an

immigration judge (“IJ”) denying his application for cancellation of removal under

8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Wilkinson v.

* 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). Garland, 601 U.S. 209, 217 (2024). We review for substantial evidence whether the

agency erred in applying the exceptional and extremely unusual hardship standard

to a set of facts. Gonzalez-Juarez v. Bondi, 137 F.4th 996, 1003 (9th Cir. 2025).

The agency considered the totality of the circumstances, including the age of

Martinez-Juarez’s children, the financial impact his removal would have on his

family, and how his removal might affect his oldest child’s religious practice.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that the resulting hardship

was not “substantially different from, or beyond, that which would normally be

expected.” Id. at 1006 (explaining that the hardship “must deviate, in the extreme,

from the norm”).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

2 23-1267