Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Juan Rojas-Perez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitioned pro se for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's decision denying his application for cancellation of removal. The Ninth Circuit had jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. The panel unanimously concluded the case was suitable for decision without oral argument. The petitioner challenged the agency's determination that he failed to establish the requisite hardship for cancellation of removal and alleged due process violations in the agency's analysis.
The Court’s Holding
The Ninth Circuit denied the petition for review. The court held that substantial evidence supported the agency's determination that Rojas-Perez did not demonstrate exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to qualifying relatives, as required for cancellation of removal. The court further held that Rojas-Perez's due process contention—that the agency applied an incorrect analysis and failed to consider testimony and evidence—was not properly before the court because he failed to exhaust administrative remedies by raising the issue before the agency, citing 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1) and Suate-Orellana v. Garland.
Key Takeaways
- Substantial evidence supported the BIA's finding that the petitioner failed to meet the 'exceptional and extremely unusual hardship' standard for cancellation of removal.
- The 'exceptional and extremely unusual hardship' standard requires showing hardship substantially beyond the ordinary hardship expected when a close family member leaves the country.
- Due process challenges to the agency's hardship analysis must be exhausted before the BIA; failure to raise the issue administratively bars judicial review.
- The exhaustion requirement under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1) is not jurisdictional but must be enforced when properly raised by the government.
- The memorandum disposition is not appropriate for publication and does not constitute precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Why It Matters
This unpublished memorandum disposition reinforces the high bar for cancellation of removal applicants to prove 'exceptional and extremely unusual hardship' and the strict enforcement of administrative exhaustion requirements for due process claims in immigration proceedings. The decision applies binding Ninth Circuit precedent from Gonzalez-Juarez v. Bondi and Suate-Orellana v. Garland to affirm the BIA's hardship determination and procedural bar. As a non-precedential disposition, it illustrates the court's application of substantial evidence review and exhaustion doctrine.
For practitioners, the order underscores the importance of matching the requested remedy and the governing standard to the case’s exact procedural posture. The result turns on the record described by the court and should not be read beyond the issues actually decided. Counsel should preserve alternative grounds, identify any unresolved questions, and document the facts needed under the applicable burden of proof.
The decision also shows why lawyers must separate factual findings, legal conclusions, and the ultimate disposition. Appellate deference or exhaustion may control even when the underlying dispute is substantial. A careful filing should therefore address each independently dispositive ground and explain the practical relief the court can still provide. Due-process theories must be presented to the agency when exhaustion is required; relabeling an evidentiary disagreement on judicial review may not preserve it.