Galvan Sanchez v. Blanche

── Galvan Sanchez v. Blanche ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Date: April 28, 2026 Category: General NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 28 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JOSE GALVAN SANCHEZ, No. 24-5582 Agency No. Petitioner, A215-544-175 v. MEMORANDUM* TODD BLANCHE, Acting Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Argued and Submitted April 16, 2026** Phoenix, Arizona Before: GRABER, HURWITZ, and DESAI, Circuit Judges. Jose Galvan Sanchez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing an appeal from an order of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying cancellation of removal under both * 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). the Violence Against Women Act (“VAWA”), 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(2), and 8 U.S.C. §1229b(b)(1). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We grant the petition as to VAWA cancellation, deny the petition otherwise, and remand. 1. To qualify for VAWA cancellation, applicants must demonstrate they have been “battered or subjected to extreme cruelty.” 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(2)(A)(i). We review the agency’s “legal determinations de novo and findings of fact for substantial evidence.” Hadera v. Gonzales, 494 F.3d 1154, 1156 (9th Cir. 2007). Where, as here, the relevant facts are undisputed, “the question is whether these undisputed facts as found by the IJ meet the legal standard.” Khan v. Holder, 584 F.3d 773, 780 (9th Cir. 2009). The agency erred by concluding that Galvan was not battered by his wife. The IJ credited Galvan’s testimony that his wife hit him three times in the face on one occasion and pulled him, tore his shirt, and scratched his chest on another. Nonetheless, the IJ concluded that Galvan was not battered because the incidents “occurred many years ago” and the couple now “have agreements of financial support and visitations.” But the “suggestion that no battery occurred in the past because of the state of the relationship today is irrelevant under the plain text of the statute.” Lopez-Birrueta v. Holder, 633 F.3d 1211, 1217 (9th Cir. 2011). Compounding this error, the BIA concluded that Galvan was not battered because he “did not seek medical attention and was able to wipe away the scratches 2 24-5582 with alcohol.” But VAWA cancellation does not require a “heightened level of violence” or injuries that need “professional medical treatment.” Id. at 1216-17 (cleaned up). Rather, “any act of physical abuse” by the spouse suffices. Hernandez v. Ashcroft, 345 F.3d 824, 840 (9th Cir. 2003). Under any standard of review,1 we conclude that the undisputed facts establish that Galvan was battered for purposes of VAWA cancellation. 2 We therefore grant the petition for review as to the agency’s denial of VAWA cancellation and remand for the agency to consider whether Galvan otherwise qualifies for relief under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(2). 2. Galvan also argues that the agency erred by denying cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1) based on his claim that his citizen children will suffer exceptional and extremely unus