Hernandez-Godinez v. Blanche

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 3 2026

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

SERGIO ANTONIO HERNANDEZ- No. 23-1326 GODINEZ,

Agency No. A200-280-991

Petitioner,

v. MEMORANDUM* TODD BLANCHE, Acting Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted July 29, 2026**

Before: McKEOWN, TALLMAN, and MENDOZA, JR., Circuit Judges.

Sergio Antonio Hernandez-Godinez, 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 application for

*

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. 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 questions of law and 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 Hernandez- Godinez 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 Hernandez-Godinez’s contention that the agency conducted an inadequate hardship analysis.

Hernandez-Godinez’s claim that the agency violated due process by misconstruing 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.”).

All pending motions are denied as moot.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

2 23-1326