Ruiz-Mora v. Bondi

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: October 24, 2025
• Docket: 24-2951
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 24 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ADRIAN OMAR RUIZ- No. 24-2951 MORA; ANGELICA MARIA Agency Nos. RODRIGUEZ-CARRILLO, A200-291-005 A206-452-332 Petitioners, MEMORANDUM* v.

PAMELA BONDI, Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Submitted October 22, 2025** Phoenix, Arizona

Before: GRABER, BADE, and LEE, Circuit Judges.

Petitioners Adrian Omar Ruiz-Mora and Angelica Maria Rodriguez-Carrillo,

natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the denial of their

applications for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1). We have

* 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). jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition.

Where, as here, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) expresses

agreement with the reasoning of the Immigration Judge (IJ), we review both

decisions. Kumar v. Holder, 728 F.3d 993, 998 (9th Cir. 2013). We review de

novo questions of law and constitutional claims. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400

F.3d 785, 791–92 (9th Cir. 2005). We review the agency’s determination of

“exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(D) for

substantial evidence. Gonzalez-Juarez v. Bondi, 137 F.4th 996, 1002–03 (9th

Cir. 2025). “Under this 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).

1. Petitioners argue that the agency violated their due-process rights by

failing to consider relevant evidence. But there is no indication in the record that

the agency failed to consider evidence relating to Petitioners’ qualifying

relatives—their two U.S.-citizen children. Because Petitioners have not shown

error, their claim fails. See Padilla-Martinez v. Holder, 770 F.3d 825, 830 (9th

Cir. 2014) (“To prevail on a due-process claim, a petitioner must demonstrate both

a violation of rights and prejudice.”).

2. Petitioners also argue that the agency misapplied the legal standard by

failing to conduct a cumulative analysis of all relevant hardship factors. See

2 24-2951 Salcido-Salcido v. INS, 138 F.3d 1292, 1293 n.1 (9th Cir. 1998) (per curiam); In re

Gonzalez Recinas, 23 I. & N. Dec. 467, 472 (B.I.A. 2002) (explaining that the

hardship factors must be assessed “in their totality”—“a ‘cumulative’ analysis”).

But the record shows that the agency considered the hardship factors individually

and cumulatively. Specifically, the agency considered the ages, health, and

circumstances of Petitioners’ U.S.-citizen children both individually and

cumulatively before determining that the evidence did not surpass the ordinary

hardship associated with the removal of a close relative. See Ramirez-Perez v.

Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 1001, 1006 (9th Cir. 2003) (explaining that a noncitizen must

demonstrate hardship to a qualifying relative “substantially beyond that which

ordinarily would be expected to result from the alien’s deportation” (quoting In re

Monreal-Aguinaga, 23 I. & N. Dec. 56, 59 (B.I.A. 2001))). Thus, the agency did

not misapply the legal standard.

3. Contrary to Petitioners’ assertions, the BIA considered the issues

raised on appeal and reasonably concluded that Petitioners’ arguments that the IJ

“rushed their testimony, cut off questioning, and made his conclusion prior to the

termination of the testimony [were] not supported by the record.” See Agonafer v.

Sessions, 859 F.3d 1198, 1206 (9th Cir. 2017) (“While the BIA ‘does not have to

write an exegesis on every contention,’ it is required to ‘consider the issues raised,

and announce its decision in terms sufficient to enable a reviewing court to

3 24-2951 perceive that it has heard and thought and not merely reacted.’” (citation omitted)).

Indeed, the IJ asked Petitioners’ counsel twice whether they wanted to provide any

further testimony or evidence not already in the record. And while the IJ

concluded that further testimony regarding Petitioners’ request for voluntary

departure was not going to be relevant, the IJ also indicated his willingness to grant

the relief requested and ultimately granted such relief. Thus, it was reasonable for

the IJ to conclude that further testimony on this issue was not needed.

4. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that

Petitioners’ removal would not result in exceptional and extremely unusual

hardship to their U.S.-citizen children. The record shows that Petitioners’

U.S.-citizen son is in good health, and there is no indication in the record that he

would not be able to continue his schooling upon Petitioners’ removal to Mexico.

And while Petitioners’ U.S.-citizen daughter has a serious health condition that

must be monitored, the record does not compel the conclusion that she would be

unable to receive the necessary medical care in Mexico.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.1

1 The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues. The motion for a stay of removal, Dkt. 2, is otherwise denied.

4 24-2951