Perez-Orozco v. Bondi

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: December 8, 2025
• Docket: 23-890
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 8 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

BAUDELIO BERNARDINO PEREZ- No. 23-890 OROZCO, Agency No. A200-878-151 Petitioner,

v. MEMORANDUM*

PAMELA BONDI, Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Submitted December 4, 2025** Portland, Oregon

Before: McKEOWN and SUNG, Circuit Judges, and FITZWATER, District

Judge.***

Baudelio Bernardino Perez-Orozco (“Perez-Orozco”), a native and citizen of

* 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). *** The Honorable Sidney A. Fitzwater, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Texas, sitting by designation. Mexico, petitions for review of a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals

(“BIA”) affirming the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ’s”) decision to deny his

application for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b. We have

jurisdiction to review the agency’s application of the statutory eligibility

requirements for a petition for cancellation of removal as a mixed question of law

and fact. Wilkinson v. Garland, 601 U.S. 209, 212 (2024).

Because the BIA affirmed and adopted the IJ’s decision, citing Matter of

Burbano, 20 I. & N. Dec. 872 (BIA 1994), we review both the BIA’s decision and

the IJ’s decision. Cruz v. Bondi, 146 F.4th 730, 737 (9th Cir. 2025). We review

agency decisions applying the exceptional and unusual hardship standard to a

given set of facts for substantial evidence. Gonzalez-Juarez v. Bondi, 137 F.4th

996, 1003 (9th Cir. 2025).

When evaluating whether qualifying relatives would experience exceptional

and extremely unusual hardship, the agency considers factors including “‘the ages,

health, and circumstances’ of [the] qualifying relatives.” Id. at 1006 (quoting In re

Monreal-Aguinaga, 23 I. & N. Dec. 56, 63 (BIA 2001)). The hardship suffered

must be “substantially beyond the ordinary hardship that would be expected when

a close family member leaves the country.” Id. (quoting Monreal-Aguinaga, 23 I.

& N. Dec. at 62).

Perez-Orozco argues that the agency failed to meaningfully consider Perez-

2 23-890 Orozco’s role in his stepchildren’s lives, the stress they would experience if he

were removed, and the financial role he played in their lives. But the IJ did

consider those factors among others, including their ages, health, access to medical

care, and other family ties. The IJ’s decision weighed the hardships Perez-Orozco’s

stepchildren would likely suffer against mitigating circumstances, including that

the children would remain in the United States, their mother largely cares for their

medical and psychological needs, their mother can take a second job as she has in

the past, and Perez-Orozco has lived with the children only for a short time.

Perez-Orozco also argues that the agency did not consider his mother’s age

and medical diagnosis in evaluating hardship to her. But the agency did consider

those factors, noting that Perez-Orozco’s mother would still have health insurance

and would be cared for by her daughter in the United States.

Because substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that

Perez-Orozco did not demonstrate that his qualifying relatives would face

exceptional and unusual hardship if he were removed, we deny the petition.

PETITION DENIED.

3 23-890