9th Cir.

NAVA MUNOZ V. BLANCHE

June 1, 2026 ·22-429 ·Unpublished · By Raj Patel

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied a petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals order. The court found substantial evidence supported the agency's determination that the petitioner failed to show exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to qualifying relatives.

Background

Celia Nava Munoz, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitioned for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying her application for cancellation of removal.

The court’s reasoning

The court reviewed the agency’s application of the exceptional and extremely unusual hardship standard for substantial evidence. It found that the petitioner did not show hardship substantially beyond the ordinary hardship expected when a close family member leaves the country. The court also rejected a due process claim because the petitioner failed to demonstrate both a violation of rights and prejudice. Additionally, the court declined to address arguments about the immigration status of the children’s father because the petitioner failed to exhaust administrative remedies by not raising them before the Board of Immigration Appeals.

What it means going forward

The denial of the petition for review upholds the denial of cancellation of removal, leaving the petitioner subject to removal proceedings.