Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Rosalia Vazquez-Cornejo, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitioned for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge's decision denying her application for cancellation of removal. The Ninth Circuit had jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. The case was submitted without oral argument on October 27, 2026, and decided by a unanimous panel.
The Court’s Holding
The Ninth Circuit denied the petition for review. The court held that substantial evidence supported the agency's determination that Vazquez-Cornejo failed to demonstrate the requisite exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to her United States citizen daughters. The court rejected her contentions that the agency misapplied the hardship standard or failed to consider all evidence and relevant factors, finding those arguments unsupported by the record. The court also rejected her claim that she was deprived of a neutral adjudicator, ruling that contention was both unexhausted and unsupported.
Key Takeaways
- The Ninth Circuit reviews the agency's application of the 'exceptional and extremely unusual hardship' standard to a given set of facts for substantial evidence.
- To qualify for cancellation of removal, a petitioner must show hardship substantially beyond the ordinary hardship expected when a close family member leaves the country.
- Arguments that the agency misapplied the legal standard or ignored evidence will be rejected if unsupported by the administrative record.
- Claims of adjudicative bias must be exhausted before the BIA; unexhausted claims cannot be reviewed by the court of appeals.
- The court issued a memorandum disposition, which is not appropriate for publication and does not constitute precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Why It Matters
This memorandum disposition reinforces the high bar for cancellation of removal applicants to prove 'exceptional and extremely unusual hardship' to qualifying relatives. It affirms the deference given to agency fact-finding under the substantial evidence standard and underscores administrative exhaustion for due process claims, such as bias allegations. The decision illustrates rejection of hardship challenges where the record supports the agency.
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 and exhaustion may control even when the underlying dispute is substantial. A careful filing should address each independently dispositive ground and explain the practical relief the court can still provide.
Hardship evidence should be organized around each qualifying relative and should explain why the expected consequences substantially exceed those ordinarily associated with removal. Claims of adjudicator bias likewise require concrete record support and timely presentation to the agency. Without both preservation and evidence, judicial review under the substantial-evidence standard offers little room to revisit the agency’s assessment.