Njeru v. Bondi

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: July 15, 2025
• Docket: 23-1219
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 15 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MACHARIA NAHASHON NJERU, No. 23-1219 Agency No. Petitioner, A208-412-389 v. MEMORANDUM*

PAMELA BONDI, Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Submitted July 11, 2025** Seattle, Washington

Before: GRABER, BEA, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.

Petitioner Macharia Nahashon Njeru is a native and citizen of Kenya. He

petitions for review the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) final order of

removal, in which the BIA dismissed Petitioner’s appeal from the Immigration

Judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying Petitioner’s application for cancellation of removal

* 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). because Petitioner did not satisfy the “exceptional and extremely unusual

hardship” standard. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D).

See Wilkinson v. Garland, 601 U.S. 209, 217 (2024). We deny the petition.

“Where, as here, the BIA cites Burbano and also provides its own review of

the evidence and law, we review both the IJ’s and the BIA’s decisions.” Ruiz-

Colmenares v. Garland, 25 F.4th 742, 748 (9th Cir. 2022) (citation omitted).

When determining whether the BIA erred in applying the exceptional and

extremely unusual hardship standard in 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(D), we review for

substantial evidence. Gonzalez-Juarez v. Bondi, 137 F.4th 996, 1003 (9th Cir.

2025). Under that 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).

Petitioner’s only qualifying relative is his daughter, Sasha, who is a United

States citizen. To establish that Sasha 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 applied the correct legal standard, and substantial evidence

supports its application of that standard. The record reflects that the agency

2 23-1219 considered Sasha’s age, health, and circumstances. See id. at 1006–07 (holding

that the BIA’s decision in In re Monreal-Aguinaga, 23 I. & N. Dec. 56, 65 (BIA

2001), and its progeny continue to supply the correct legal test); In re Monreal-

Aguinaga, 23 I. & N. Dec. at 63 (directing the BIA to consider the age, health, and

circumstances of qualifying relatives). The agency found that Sasha, age 9 at the

time of Petitioner’s removal hearing in 2019, would continue to reside with her

mother, who had sole custody of Sasha following Petitioner’s divorce in 2012, that

Sasha’s daily life would “essentially be the same,” and that Petitioner had not been

involved in her life for several years as they lived on opposite sides of the country.

Thus, Sasha’s daily life is unlikely to be affected by Petitioner’s removal.

Accordingly, the record does not compel us to conclude that any hardship faced by

Sasha would be “significantly different from or greater than the hardship that a

deported alien’s family normally experiences.” Gonzalez-Juarez, 137 F.4th at

1006 (citation omitted).

Petitioner also asserts that his arrest by immigration authorities violated the

Fourth Amendment. Because, as he concedes, Petitioner did not raise this

argument before the agency and therefore failed to exhaust this issue before the

agency, we cannot and do not address it in the first instance. See 8 U.S.C.

§ 1252(d)(1); Santos-Zacaria v. Garland, 598 U.S. 411, 417-19 (2023); Perez Cruz

v. Barr, 926 F.3d 1128, 1135 (9th Cir. 2019) (noting the agency’s authority to

3 23-1219 entertain arguments regarding Fourth Amendment violations).

PETITION DENIED.

4 23-1219