Covarrubias Arellano v. Blanche

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 2 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT SANTIAGO COVARRUBIAS No. 22-1484 ARELLANO, Agency No. A216-268-659 Petitioner, v. MEMORANDUM* TODD BLANCHE, Acting Attorney General, Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted May 26, 2026** Before: S.R. THOMAS, MILLER, and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

Santiago Covarrubias Arellano, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for

* 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). cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence whether the agency erred in applying the exceptional and extremely unusual hardship standard to a given set of facts. Gonzalez-Juarez v. Bondi, 137 F.4th 996, 1003 (9th Cir. 2025). We review de novo constitutional claims. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Covarrubias Arellano has not shown exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to qualifying relatives. See Gonzalez-Juarez, 137 F.4th at 1006 (petitioner must show hardship “substantially beyond the ordinary hardship that would be expected when a close family member leaves the country” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

Covarrubias Arellano’s claim that the agency violated due process by failing to consider hardship evidence fails because he has not shown error. See Padilla- Martinez v. Holder, 770 F.3d 825, 830 (9th Cir. 2014) (“To prevail on a due- process claim, a petitioner must demonstrate both a violation of rights and prejudice.”).

To the extent that Covarrubias Arellano contends the IJ erred by using an incorrect legal standard, the contention is not properly before the court because he did not raise it before the BIA. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1) (administrative remedies

2 22-1484 must be exhausted); see also Suate-Orellana v. Garland, 101 F.4th 624, 629 (9th Cir. 2024) (the exhaustion requirement is not jurisdictional, but must be enforced if properly raised by a party).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

3 22-1484