9th Cir.

MEDRANO-VELASQUEZ V. BLANCHE

June 24, 2026 ·25-6438 ·Unpublished · By Raj Patel

The Ninth Circuit denied in part and dismissed in part a petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals order. The court upheld the agency's finding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to qualifying relatives.

Listen to this decision 0:00 / 1:16

Background

Jose Luis Medrano-Velasquez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitioned for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision. The immigration judge had denied his applications for cancellation of removal and voluntary departure.

The court’s reasoning

The court reviewed the agency’s application of the exceptional and extremely unusual hardship standard for substantial evidence and questions of law de novo. It held that substantial evidence supported the agency’s determination that the petitioner had not shown hardship substantially beyond the ordinary hardship expected when a close family member leaves the country. The court also rejected contentions that the agency failed to consider all relevant evidence or assess hardship in the aggregate. Regarding voluntary departure, the court noted it lacked jurisdiction to review the discretionary denial under Section twelve hundred fifty-two subsection a two B one.

petitioner must show hardship substantially beyond the ordinary hardship that would be expected when a close family member leaves the country

Gonzalez-Juarez v. Bondi, 137 F.4th 996, 1006 (9th Cir. 2025)

What it means going forward

The petitioner’s applications for cancellation of removal and voluntary departure remain denied, and the motion to stay removal is denied as moot.