Ernesto Hernandez-Velasco v. Todd Blanche

── Ernesto Hernandez-Velasco v. Todd Blanche ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Date: April 21, 2026 Category: General NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 21 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ERNESTO HERNANDEZ-VELASCO, No. 19-71168 Petitioner, Agency No. A205-576-046 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** San Francisco, California Before: RAWLINSON, R. NELSON, and BADE, Circuit Judges. Ernesto Hernandez-Velasco, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of a final order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming an immigration judge’s (IJ) denial of cancellation of removal, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), and denying * 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). his motion to reopen proceedings based on new evidence relevant to his claim for cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1), and we deny the petition. 1. The BIA did not err as a matter of law in concluding that potential deprivation of an opportunity to attain a high school education does not constitute an “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship.” 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(D). To qualify as “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship,” the burden imposed on the alien’s qualifying relatives “must deviate, in the extreme,” from “the hardship that results in the usual, ordinary course when an alien is removed.” Gonzalez- Juarez v. Bondi, 137 F.4th 996, 1006 (9th Cir. 2025). Although the agency must consider “whether the children will be deprived of an opportunity to have an education,” Cabrera-Alvarez v. Gonzales, 423 F.3d 1006, 1012 (9th Cir. 2005) (citing In re Andazola-Rivas, 23 I. & N. Dec. 319, 323–24 (B.I.A. 2002)), neither this court nor the BIA has ever held that deprivation of an opportunity to attain an education is dispositive of “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship.” Instead, case law supports the conclusion that this factor alone is insufficient to qualify an alien for cancellation of removal. Cf. In re Gonzalez Recinas, 23 I. & N. Dec. 467, 471–72 (B.I.A. 2002) (concluding that “the heavy financial and familial burden on the adult respondent, the lack of support from the children’s father, the United States citizen children’s unfamiliarity with the Spanish language, the lawful 2 residence in this country of all of the respondent’s immediate family, and the concomitant lack of family in Mexico” constituted an “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship,” but only “by a close margin”). Accordingly, the BIA did not fail to apply the controlling legal standard. 2. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Hernandez- Velasco’s motion to reopen failed to make out a prima facie case of “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” to his qualifying relatives. 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(D); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2; Gonzalez-Juarez, 137 F.4th at 1002–03; Lemus-Escobar v. Bondi, 158 F.4th 944, 963–64 (9th Cir. 2025). The new evidence accompanying the motion relates to how removal would detrimentally affect Hernandez-Velasco’s three daughters’ educational opportunities. At the time of the imm