Case: 24-60286 Document: 35-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/19/2024

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ____________ United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit

No. 24-60286 FILED November 19, 2024 Summary Calendar ____________ Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Alonzo Ixtos-Sac, Petitioner, versus Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent. ______________________________ Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Agency No. A200 224 474 ______________________________ Before Barksdale, Stewart, and Ramirez, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam: * Alonzo Ixtos-Sac, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) dismissing his appeal from an order of the immigration judge denying his application for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b). Ixtos maintains the BIA erred in determining he did not establish eligibility for such cancellation _____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

Case: 24-60286 Document: 35-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/19/2024

No. 24-60286

because he did not show his qualifying relatives would experience the requisite hardship in the event of his removal.

Ixtos must show, inter alia, that his removal from the United States “would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to” a qualifying relative, including a United States citizen child. 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(D).

Whether an established set of facts satisfies the “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” standard is a mixed question of fact and law that is a reviewable legal question under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D). Wilkinson v. Garland, 601 U.S. 209, 217, 225 (2024). Wilkinson noted that review of this question was “deferential”, but did not specify a standard of review. Id. at 225.

Although the parties advocate for application of the substantial- evidence standard, we need not decide what standard applies here, as Ixtos could not succeed under a general deferential view. Id. He primarily bases his claim of hardship to his qualifying relatives (his three minor children) on the economic detriment and emotional harm that would result from his removal, and his child’s minor health issues.

It has long been settled, however, “that economic detriment alone is insufficient to support even a finding of extreme hardship”. Matter of Andazola-Rivas, 23 I. & N. Dec. 319, 323 (BIA 2002). Moreover, like petitioner in Parada-Orellana v. Garland, Ixtos has not shown his child would be unable to get medication for his minor health issues (recurrent nosebleeds) in Ixtos’ absence, as his wife will remain in the United States with the children. 21 F.4th 887, 895 (5th Cir. 2022) (petitioner did not show that qualifying relative would be unable to get asthma medication). Finally, Ixtos “has not shown that any emotional hardship that [his family] would face would be ‘substantially different from, or beyond, that which would normally be expected from the deportation of an alien with close family members

Case: 24-60286 Document: 35-1 Page: 3 Date Filed: 11/19/2024

No. 24-60286

here’”. Id. (quoting In Re Monreal-Aguinaga, 23 I. & N. Dec. 56, 65 (BIA 2001)).

DENIED.