Tobon-Garcia v. Blanche

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 9 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

LICEL TOBON-GARCIA, No. 24-3152 Agency No. Petitioner, A200-978-987 v. MEMORANDUM* TODD BLANCHE, Acting Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Submitted July 6, 2026** Portland, Oregon

Before: GRABER, BERZON, and SUNG, Circuit Judges.

Petitioner Licel Tobon-Garcia, a native and citizen of Mexico, seeks review

of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing his appeal of

the immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of 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).

1 Because the BIA adopted the IJ’s decision under In re Burbano, 20 I. & N.

Dec. 872 (BIA 1994), “we review the decisions of both the BIA and the IJ,”

Gonzaga-Ortega v. Holder, 736 F.3d 795, 800 (9th Cir. 2013). We review for

substantial evidence the agency’s determination that the facts do not satisfy the

“exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” standard for cancellation of

removal. Gonzalez-Juarez v. Bondi, 137 F.4th 996, 1003 (9th Cir. 2025); 8 U.S.C.

§ 1229b(b)(1)(D). To meet the statutory standard, “the hardship must be out of the

ordinary and exceedingly uncommon.” Gonzalez-Juarez, 137 F.4th at 1006. For

the following reasons, we deny the petition for review.

1. In concluding that Tobon-Garcia’s wife and son would not suffer

“exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” resulting from his removal, the IJ

considered the pertinent hardship factors, including his wife’s medical, emotional,

and financial needs, his son’s emotional and financial needs, and the consequences

of long-term family separation.

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s conclusion that the medical and

financial hardship to Tobon-Garcia’s wife would not meet the standard for

cancellation of removal. The IJ considered the wife’s testimony that her medical

conditions mostly do not affect her day-to-day life and that she has health

insurance through her employer. The IJ also reasonably concluded that the

financial impact of Tobon-Garcia’s removal on his wife would be mitigated by the

2 fact that she supports herself financially and lives with other family members who

help with mortgage payments.

Substantial evidence also supports the IJ’s determination that the emotional

and financial hardship to Tobon-Garcia’s son would not be exceptional and

extremely unusual. The IJ appropriately considered evidence that Tobon-Garcia’s

son lives with him only on weekends. If Tobon-Garcia were removed, his son

would remain in the United States with his mother and stepfather and would

continue to receive financial support and health insurance. Although family

separation might cause Tobon-Garcia’s son emotional hardship, the IJ reasonably

concluded that such hardship is not unusual enough to warrant cancellation of

removal.

2. The BIA’s decision did not rely on Tobon-Garcia’s wife or son’s ability to

sponsor immediate relatives. The BIA concluded that the hardship to both

qualifying relatives was not exceptional and extremely unusual without

considering the availability of a Form I-130 petition.

Petition DENIED.