Ovalle-Bamaca v. Blanche

── Ovalle-Bamaca v. Blanche ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Date: April 17, 2026 Category: General NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 17 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT BIATO RODEL OVALLE-BAMACA, No. 25-3072 Agency No. Petitioner, A206-237-138 v. MEMORANDUM* TODD BLANCHE, Acting Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted April 17, 2026** Portland, Oregon Before: OWENS, VANDYKE, and SUNG, Circuit Judges. Concurrence by Judge VANDYKE. Biato Rodel Ovalle-Bamaca petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA’s”) decision affirming an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ’s”) decision denying his applications for cancellation of removal, asylum, * 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). withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review legal questions de novo, Gonzalez-Caraveo v. Sessions, 882 F.3d 885, 893 (9th Cir. 2018), and factual determinations and “fact-intensive mixed questions” for substantial evidence, Ruiz v. Bondi, 163 F.4th 586, 592, 599 (9th Cir. 2025) (citation omitted). We deny the petition. 1. The agency did not err in concluding that Ovalle-Bamaca is ineligible for cancellation of removal for failing to demonstrate “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” to a qualifying family member. See Gonzalez-Juarez v. Bondi, 137 F.4th 996, 999 (9th Cir. 2025) (applicant must demonstrate “that removal would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to the alien’s spouse, parent, or child, who is a citizen of the United States or an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence” (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1))). The agency’s “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” determination is a mixed question we review for substantial evidence. Id. at 1003. The BIA concluded that the hardship Ovalle-Bamaca’s qualifying minor children would face that would result from relocating to Guatemala and being uprooted from their schools and community, although “significant and possibly extreme,” is “neither . . . exceptional nor unusual.” Substantial evidence supports this determination. See id. at 1007–08 (hardship to minor children resulting from relocation to Mexico, 2 25-3072 where they could face “high levels of crime and violence,” “lost educational opportunities,” difficulty due to “lack of fluency in Spanish,” and “separation from their older sister” in the United States, was not “exceptional” or “extremely unusual” hardship because such hardship is present in “a large proportion of removal cases”). 2. The agency did not err in finding that Ovalle-Bamaca’s application for asylum was untimely and ineligible for an exception to the one-year filing rule based on “changed circumstances” in Guatemala. First, we have jurisdiction to review the agency’s “changed circumstances” determination because it presents a mixed question of fact and law. Under § 1158(a)(2)(D), the agency may consider an untimely asylum application if the applicant “demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Attorney General either the existence of