NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 6 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ANTONIO MENDOZA-RODRIGUEZ, No. 23-1371 Agency No. Petitioner, A206-237-313 v. MEMORANDUM* PAMELA BONDI, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 4, 2026** Portland, Oregon
Before: BEA, CHRISTEN, and DESAI, Circuit Judges.
Petitioner Antonio Mendoza-Rodriguez, a native and citizen of Mexico,
petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) order dismissing
his appeal from an immigration judge’s (IJ) decision denying his application for
cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1).
* 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). We have jurisdiction to review the agency’s application of section
1229b(b)(1)(D)’s “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” standard to a given
set of facts pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D). Wilkinson v. Garland, 601 U.S.
209, 217 (2024). We deny the petition for review.
We review for substantial evidence “whether the BIA erred in applying the
exceptional and extremely unusual hardship standard to a given set of facts.”
Gonzalez-Juarez v. Bondi, 137 F.4th 996, 1003 (9th Cir. 2025). Under the
substantial evidence 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). We review de novo claims of due process violations in
removal proceedings. Oshodi v. Holder, 729 F.3d 883, 889 (9th Cir. 2013) (en banc).
1. Petitioner’s only qualifying relative is his daughter, Hannah, who is a
United States citizen. To establish that Hannah would experience “exceptional and
extremely unusual hardship,” the record must compel us to conclude that her
hardship would be “substantially beyond the ordinary hardship that would be
expected when a close family member leaves the country.” Gonzalez-Juarez, 137
F.4th at 1006 (citation omitted). It does not.
The agency’s conclusion that Petitioner had failed to establish that Hannah
would suffer “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” if she remained in the
United States was supported by substantial evidence. While acknowledging that
2 23-1371 “the separation of close family members undoubtedly constitutes hardship,” the
agency explained that “family separation is not in and of itself exceptional and
extremely unusual hardship.” Our precedent supports the agency’s conclusion. See,
e.g., Cabrera-Alvarez v. Gonzales, 423 F.3d 1006, 1013 (9th Cir. 2005) (explaining
that the emotional suffering that results from the separation of parents from children
is “sadly common” in the removal context and does not satisfy the exceptional and
extremely unusual standard). The agency acknowledged that Petitioner could not
provide the same amount of financial support to the family if he were removed, but
found that reduced economic support, absent more, does not constitute “exceptional
and extremely unusual hardship.” It is well-established that a “lower standard of
living . . . generally will be insufficient” to establish “exceptional and extremely
unusual hardship.” Matter of Monreal-Aguinaga, 23 I. & N. Dec. 56, 63–64 (BIA
2001).
The agency’s conclusion that Petitioner had failed to establish that Hannah
would suffer “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” if she accompanied him
to Mexico was also supported by substantial evidence. The agency acknowledged
that Hannah would have reduced educational opportunities in Mexico. But the
agency also noted that there was no evidence that Hannah “would be deprived of all
schooling or of an opportunity to obtain any education,” and therefore, her hardship
would not be exceptional and extremely unusual. The agency acknowledged
3 23-1371 Petitioner’s fears about Hannah’s safety in Mexico but found that this did not rise to
the level of exceptional and extremely unusual hardship. We have recognized that
“adverse country conditions in the country of return . . . generally will be
insufficient” to establish exceptional and extremely unusual hardship. Gonzalez-
Juarez, 137 F.4th at 1007 (quoting Monreal-Aguinaga, 23 I. & N. Dec. at 63–64).
2. Petitioner argues that the BIA erred by affirming the denial of cancellation
of removal because the IJ failed to consider relevant evidence.
Petitioner argues that the agency failed to consider Hannah’s future
circumstances when it concluded that she would not suffer exceptional and
extremely unusual hardship. But the agency considered those future circumstances.
First, the agency considered the impact that moving to Mexico would have on
Hannah’s future learning opportunities. Second, the agency considered the
increased risk of physical harm that Hannah would face if she moved to Mexico with
Petitioner after his removal. Third, the agency considered the reduced economic and
educational opportunities that Hannah might have if she remained in the United
States but lacked her father’s financial support.
Petitioner also argues that the agency failed to consider the cumulative effect
of various pieces of evidence in assessing hardship. However, the IJ found that the
“exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” standard had not been met after
considering “all the circumstances, taken cumulatively.” Petitioner argues that the
4 23-1371 agency should have weighed the evidence differently. This argument fails.
Although Petitioner may disagree with the agency’s determination, Petitioner does
not identify evidence in the record that the agency ignored. The record thus does
not “compel[] a contrary conclusion.” Duran-Rodriguez, 918 F.3d at 1028.
3. Petitioner argues that the IJ violated his due process right to a fair hearing
when, during Petitioner’s merits hearing, the IJ limited the testimony of Petitioner’s
nonbiological daughter. To prevail on his due process challenge, Petitioner must
show that (1) his removal proceedings were “fundamentally unfair,” and (2) he
suffered prejudice, such that “the outcome of the proceeding may have been
affected.” Zamorano v. Garland, 2 F.4th 1213, 1226 (9th Cir. 2021).
Petitioner’s claim fails because he cannot show that the IJ violated his due
process right to present evidence. An IJ has “discretion to limit testimony in order
to focus the proceedings and exclude irrelevant evidence.” Oshodi, 729 F.3d at 890
n.9 (citation omitted).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 6 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ANTONIO MENDOZA-RODRIGUEZ, No. 23-1371 Agency No. Petitioner, A206-237-313 v. MEMORANDUM* PAMELA BONDI, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 4, 2026** Portland, Oregon
Before: BEA, CHRISTEN, and DESAI, Circuit Judges.
Petitioner Antonio Mendoza-Rodriguez, a native and citizen of Mexico,
petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) order dismissing
his appeal from an immigration judge’s (IJ) decision denying his application for
cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1).
* 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). We have jurisdiction to review the agency’s application of section
1229b(b)(1)(D)’s “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” standard to a given
set of facts pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D). Wilkinson v. Garland, 601 U.S.
209, 217 (2024). We deny the petition for review.
We review for substantial evidence “whether the BIA erred in applying the
exceptional and extremely unusual hardship standard to a given set of facts.”
Gonzalez-Juarez v. Bondi, 137 F.4th 996, 1003 (9th Cir. 2025). Under the
substantial evidence 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). We review de novo claims of due process violations in
removal proceedings. Oshodi v. Holder, 729 F.3d 883, 889 (9th Cir. 2013) (en banc).
1. Petitioner’s only qualifying relative is his daughter, Hannah, who is a
United States citizen. To establish that Hannah would experience “exceptional and
extremely unusual hardship,” the record must compel us to conclude that her
hardship would be “substantially beyond the ordinary hardship that would be
expected when a close family member leaves the country.” Gonzalez-Juarez, 137
F.4th at 1006 (citation omitted). It does not.
The agency’s conclusion that Petitioner had failed to establish that Hannah
would suffer “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” if she remained in the
United States was supported by substantial evidence. While acknowledging that
2 23-1371 “the separation of close family members undoubtedly constitutes hardship,” the
agency explained that “family separation is not in and of itself exceptional and
extremely unusual hardship.” Our precedent supports the agency’s conclusion. See,
e.g., Cabrera-Alvarez v. Gonzales, 423 F.3d 1006, 1013 (9th Cir. 2005) (explaining
that the emotional suffering that results from the separation of parents from children
is “sadly common” in the removal context and does not satisfy the exceptional and
extremely unusual standard). The agency acknowledged that Petitioner could not
provide the same amount of financial support to the family if he were removed, but
found that reduced economic support, absent more, does not constitute “exceptional
and extremely unusual hardship.” It is well-established that a “lower standard of
living . . . generally will be insufficient” to establish “exceptional and extremely
unusual hardship.” Matter of Monreal-Aguinaga, 23 I. & N. Dec. 56, 63–64 (BIA
2001).
The agency’s conclusion that Petitioner had failed to establish that Hannah
would suffer “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” if she accompanied him
to Mexico was also supported by substantial evidence. The agency acknowledged
that Hannah would have reduced educational opportunities in Mexico. But the
agency also noted that there was no evidence that Hannah “would be deprived of all
schooling or of an opportunity to obtain any education,” and therefore, her hardship
would not be exceptional and extremely unusual. The agency acknowledged
3 23-1371 Petitioner’s fears about Hannah’s safety in Mexico but found that this did not rise to
the level of exceptional and extremely unusual hardship. We have recognized that
“adverse country conditions in the country of return . . . generally will be
insufficient” to establish exceptional and extremely unusual hardship. Gonzalez-
Juarez, 137 F.4th at 1007 (quoting Monreal-Aguinaga, 23 I. & N. Dec. at 63–64).
2. Petitioner argues that the BIA erred by affirming the denial of cancellation
of removal because the IJ failed to consider relevant evidence.
Petitioner argues that the agency failed to consider Hannah’s future
circumstances when it concluded that she would not suffer exceptional and
extremely unusual hardship. But the agency considered those future circumstances.
First, the agency considered the impact that moving to Mexico would have on
Hannah’s future learning opportunities. Second, the agency considered the
increased risk of physical harm that Hannah would face if she moved to Mexico with
Petitioner after his removal. Third, the agency considered the reduced economic and
educational opportunities that Hannah might have if she remained in the United
States but lacked her father’s financial support.
Petitioner also argues that the agency failed to consider the cumulative effect
of various pieces of evidence in assessing hardship. However, the IJ found that the
“exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” standard had not been met after
considering “all the circumstances, taken cumulatively.” Petitioner argues that the
4 23-1371 agency should have weighed the evidence differently. This argument fails.
Although Petitioner may disagree with the agency’s determination, Petitioner does
not identify evidence in the record that the agency ignored. The record thus does
not “compel[] a contrary conclusion.” Duran-Rodriguez, 918 F.3d at 1028.
3. Petitioner argues that the IJ violated his due process right to a fair hearing
when, during Petitioner’s merits hearing, the IJ limited the testimony of Petitioner’s
nonbiological daughter. To prevail on his due process challenge, Petitioner must
show that (1) his removal proceedings were “fundamentally unfair,” and (2) he
suffered prejudice, such that “the outcome of the proceeding may have been
affected.” Zamorano v. Garland, 2 F.4th 1213, 1226 (9th Cir. 2021).
Petitioner’s claim fails because he cannot show that the IJ violated his due
process right to present evidence. An IJ has “discretion to limit testimony in order
to focus the proceedings and exclude irrelevant evidence.” Oshodi, 729 F.3d at 890
n.9 (citation omitted). “[T]he critical question is ‘whether the IJ’s actions prevented
the introduction of significant testimony.’” Hussain v. Rosen, 985 F.3d 634, 642
(9th Cir. 2021) (quoting Oshodi, 729 F.3d at 890). The IJ permitted Petitioner’s
nonbiological daughter to testify but limited her testimony to the issue of Petitioner’s
relationship with Hannah. That limitation was within the IJ’s discretion because
Hannah was Petitioner’s sole qualifying relative; her hardship alone was relevant to
his application.
5 23-1371 4. Petitioner also argues that the IJ violated his due process rights by relying
on “nonexistent and unsupported evidence inferred from [Petitioner’s] family
residing in Mexico.” Even if the IJ’s action constituted error, Petitioner fails to show
that he suffered prejudice as a result. The IJ’s error could not have been prejudicial
because substantial evidence in the record supports the agency’s decision apart from
the IJ’s finding that Petitioner would have “family support” in Mexico. Petitioner
has not shown that “the outcome of the proceeding may have been affected” by the
IJ’s consideration of Petitioner’s “family support” in Mexico, and his claim therefore
fails. Zamorano, 2 F.4th at 1226 (citation omitted).
PETITION DENIED.1
1 Petitioner’s motion to stay removal, Dkt. 3, is denied. The temporary stay of removal shall remain in place until the mandate issues.
6 23-1371