Medrano-Velasquez v. Blanche

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 24 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JOSE LUIS MEDRANO-VELASQUEZ, No. 25-6438 Agency No. Petitioner, A206-448-691 v. MEMORANDUM* TODD BLANCHE, Acting Attorney General, Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted June 22, 2026** Before: CANBY, BENNETT, and BADE, Circuit Judges.

Jose Luis Medrano-Velasquez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his applications for cancellation of removal

* 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 request, included in the opening brief, for oral argument is denied. and voluntary departure. Our jurisdiction is governed by 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 questions of law. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005).

We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Medrano- Velasquez 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)). We reject as unsupported by the record Medrano-Velasquez’s contentions that the agency erred by failing to consider all relevant evidence and by failing to assess the hardship in the aggregate.

We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary denial of voluntary departure. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i); Patel v. Garland, 596 U.S. 328, 338-40 (2022) (when the agency denies a form of relief listed in 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i), federal courts have jurisdiction to review constitutional claims and questions of law, but not factual findings or discretionary decisions). Medrano- Velasquez does not raise a colorable legal or constitutional claim the court can

2 25-6438 review. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D); Corro-Barragan v. Holder, 718 F.3d 1174, 1177 (9th Cir. 2013).

The motion to stay removal is denied as moot.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

3 25-6438