Rafael Rodriguez Zaragoza v. Todd Blanche

── Rafael Rodriguez Zaragoza v. Todd Blanche ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Date: April 28, 2026 Category: General NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 28 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT RAFAEL RODRIGUEZ ZARAGOZA, No. 20-71287 Petitioner, Agency No. A205-158-377 v. MEMORANDUM* TODD BLANCHE, Acting Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted April 24, 2026** San Francisco, California Before: S.R. THOMAS, CHRISTEN, and FORREST, Circuit Judges. Petitioner Rafael Rodriguez Zaragoza, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) decision denying his appeal from the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of his application for cancellation of removal. We deny the petition. * 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).  1. Notice to Appear. Rodriguez Zaragoza’s initial Notice to Appear (NTA) did not include a date and time, meaning it was statutorily defective. See Niz- Chavez v. Garland, 593 U.S. 155, 160–62 (2021); 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a). A proper NTA is not a jurisdictional requirement and, as a claim-processing rule, is subject to the demands of exhaustion. See United States v. Bastide-Hernandez, 39 F.4th 1187, 1193 (9th Cir. 2022) (en banc); Umana-Escobar v. Garland, 69 F.4th 544, 550 (9th Cir. 2023). Exhaustion requires non-constitutional legal claims to have been raised first in the administrative proceedings in a manner that is sufficient to put the BIA on notice of what the petitioner is challenging. Bare v. Barr, 975 F.3d 952, 960 (9th Cir. 2020); 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1). Rodriguez Zaragoza did not exhaust the non- jurisdictional issue now advanced. Additionally, a removal order entered in absentia is valid and may not be set aside if the petitioner received either a proper NTA or a proper Notice of Hearing for the proceeding in which the order was entered. Campos-Chaves v. Garland, 602 U.S. 447, 459–61 (2024). If a removal order entered in absentia may not be set aside even where the NTA was technically defective, an order entered following a hearing where the petitioner was present and had a full opportunity to present his evidence and arguments need not be either. Therefore, we do not set aside Rodriguez Zaragoza’s removal order on this ground. 2  2. Cancellation of Removal. Rodriguez Zaragoza raises numerous arguments for why the agency erred in denying him cancellation of removal, including that the agency failed to consider each eligibility requirement and failed to make a credibility finding relating to the hardship requirement. We largely lack jurisdiction over these issues. To obtain cancellation of removal, a petitioner must satisfy several mandatory statutory requirements, including “that removal would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” to a qualifying relative. 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(D). A hardship meets the statutory standard only if it is “exceedingly uncommon” and “deviate[s], in the extreme, from the norm” expected when a close family member is required to leave the country. Gonzalez-Juarez v. Bondi, 137 F.4th 996, 1006 (9th Cir. 2025). While we have jurisdiction to review the agency’s determination of whether a qualifying hardshi