Reyes-Tapia v. Bondi

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: October 9, 2025
• Docket: 24-3359
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 9 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

FELIPE REYES-TAPIA, No. 24-3359 Agency No. Petitioner, A201-439-532 v. MEMORANDUM* PAMELA BONDI, Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Submitted October 7, 2025** Las Vegas, Nevada

Before: BENNETT, SANCHEZ, and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

Petitioner Felipe Reyes-Tapia is a native and citizen of Mexico. He petitions

for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) dismissal of his appeal

from an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his application for cancellation of

removal. The agency determined that Petitioner had not demonstrated that his

* 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). removal would impose the requisite “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship”

to his children. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(D). “Where, as here, the BIA adopts

the IJ’s decision while adding its own reasons, we review both decisions.” Siong v.

INS, 376 F.3d 1030, 1036 (9th Cir. 2004) (quoting Kataria v. INS, 232 F.3d 1107,

1112 (9th Cir. 2000), abrogated on other grounds by Garland v. Ming Dai, 593

U.S. 357 (2021)). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the

petition.

1. Petitioner has not shown that the agency violated his right to due process

by failing to consider all the relevant evidence in making its hardship

determination. A noncitizen “attempting to establish that the [agency] violated his

right to due process by failing to consider relevant evidence must overcome the

presumption that it did review the evidence.” Larita-Martinez v. INS, 220 F.3d

1092, 1095–96 (9th Cir. 2000). The record does not support Petitioner’s assertion

that the agency ignored his evidence of missed educational and career

opportunities in determining the economic harm to his children.1 The agency

expressly considered the economic harm to Petitioner’s children and found that,

though Petitioner’s removal would “cause a significant financial detriment” to

them, it was insufficient to qualify as an exceptional and extremely unusual

hardship. And the agency need not “individually identify and discuss every piece

1 Petitioner cites to no specific evidence in the record that was missed.

2 24-3359 of evidence in the record.” Gonzalez-Juarez v. Bondi, 137 F.4th 996, 1008 (9th

Cir. 2025) (quoting Hernandez v. Garland, 52 F.4th 757, 770 (9th Cir. 2022)).

2. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that Petitioner’s

removal would not result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to his

children under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(D).2 See Gonzalez-Juarez, 137 F.4th at

1003 (holding that the agency’s hardship determination is a mixed question of law

and fact that we review for substantial evidence). Here, the agency considered the

totality of the circumstances, including Petitioner’s children’s health, whether other

relatives would take care of them if Petitioner was removed, and the economic

hardship that would occur if Petitioner was removed. Based on the evidence

presented, the agency found that Petitioner had failed to demonstrate an

“exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” to his children because the hardship

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

normally be expected from the deportation of a[ ] [noncitizen] with close family

members here.” See id. at 1006. Because the evidence does not compel a contrary

conclusion, we deny the petition. See id. at 1002.

2 Petitioner also contends that the agency violated his due process rights by not finding that his removal would result in an exceptional and extremely unusual hardship on his children. Petitioner’s argument that the agency misapplied the facts to the applicable law does not state a colorable constitutional claim. See Torres-Aguilar v. INS, 246 F.3d 1267, 1271 (9th Cir. 2001). And to the extent that Petitioner disputes the agency’s underlying factual findings, we lack jurisdiction to review those findings. See Wilkinson v. Garland, 601 U.S. 209, 225 (2024).

3 24-3359 PETITION DENIED.3

3 The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.

4 24-3359