9th Circuit denies petition of Mexican man seeking to cancel his removal, ruling his challenge…
Zavalza-Uribe v. Blanche
Status and record
Your position
Do you support this decision?
An advisory read. Your position on a ruling is citizen opinion; it does not form a citizen mandate and is never a legal appeal.
Civitus citizens
Take a position above to see how verified Civitus citizens are weighing in. Positions stay sealed until you have one of your own.
The Civitus brief
AI analysis
Plain English
9th Circuit denies petition of Mexican man seeking to cancel his removal, ruling his challenge was filed too late and the immigration board did not abuse its discretion.
Why it matters
The Ninth Circuit denied Juan Zavalza-Uribe's petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals decision that refused to reconsider the denial of his request to reopen a cancellation of removal case. The court found that his challenge to the original reopening denial was untimely because he filed his petition more than thirty days after that decision. The court also found the BIA acted within its discretion when it concluded he had not shown sufficient hardship to qualify for cancellation of removal.
Who it affects
This ruling directly affects Juan Zavalza-Uribe and his ability to remain in the United States. More broadly, it serves as a reminder to immigrants and their attorneys that strict filing deadlines apply when seeking federal court review of immigration decisions.
What happens next
Current
Decision issued Jul 15, 2026
Unpublished opinion
Next
Possible rehearing
Parties can ask the same court to reconsider. Then: possible supreme court petition.
View possible path
- Decision issued Jul 15, 2026Unpublished opinion
- Possible rehearingParties can ask the same court to reconsider.
- Possible Supreme Court petitionThe Supreme Court takes only a small share of petitions.
Citizens vs Court
Civitus citizens
Sealed
Take a counted position to open the tally.
Appellate court
Decision issued
Jul 15, 2026 · Unpublished opinion
Take a position above to open the comparison.
A comparison of public sentiment with the ruling. Courts are not subject to a citizen mandate, and judges are not elected representatives.
Take action
Courts decide cases; Congress can respond with legislation. Telling your representative is the civic lever here.
Public discussion
Add a tag
Citizen opinion on this ruling, not a rehearing of the case. Similar opinions on this case can open a solution poll.
3 similar opinions open a solution poll
Loading opinions
Deeper context
Long-form analysis, legal background, and source material
Read analysisAnalysis · Source
DEEPER READ
Juan Zavalza-Uribe, a Mexican citizen, sought cancellation of removal, a form of immigration relief that can allow a person to remain in the United States if, among other things, their removal would cause exceptional hardship to a qualifying family member. His application was denied, and he filed a motion to reopen and then a motion to reconsider those denials before the Board of Immigration Appeals. The BIA denied both motions, and he petitioned the Ninth Circuit for review. The court addressed two separate issues. First, it declined to review the BIA's denial of the motion to reopen because Zavalza-Uribe filed his petition for review more than thirty days after that decision was issued. The court noted that the thirty-day filing deadline is a mandatory claim-processing rule that must be enforced when properly raised by the opposing party, citing a 2025 Supreme Court decision. Second, the court reviewed the BIA's denial of the motion to reconsider and found no abuse of discretion. The BIA had explained its reasoning, considered evidence of the petitioner's daughter's mental health diagnoses and treatment, and concluded he was unlikely to establish the level of hardship required. The court found that explanation adequate and the BIA's factual evaluation of the hardship evidence was not arbitrary or irrational. The court also noted that Zavalza-Uribe's motion to reconsider challenged how the BIA weighed his evidence, but did not challenge the legal standard the BIA used. Because he did not raise a legal-standard argument before the BIA, and also did not raise it in his opening brief to the Ninth Circuit, the court declined to consider it. The petition was denied in full. There was no dissent noted in the opinion.
CITATION AND RECORD
Record source: CourtListener
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 15 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JUAN ZAVALZA-URIBE, No. 22-2032 Agency No. Petitioner, A206-191-438 v. MEMORANDUM* TODD BLANCHE, Acting Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Argued and Submitted July 10, 2026 Portland, Oregon Before: GRABER, BERZON, and SUNG, Circuit Judges. Petitioner Juan Zavalza-Uribe,1 a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision denying his motion to * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. 1 Although the agency’s documents refer to Petitioner as Juan Zavalza- Olleva, Petitioner testified that he has never used the last name Zavalza-Olleva; rather, officials used that name in error. His application for cancellation of removal reflects that his last name is Zavalza-Uribe. Accordingly, we use that name in this disposition. reconsider its decision denying his motion to reopen his application for cancellation of removal. We deny the petition. 1. To the extent that Petitioner challenges the BIA’s decision denying his motion to reopen, the petition is untimely, so we decline to consider his arguments. See Riley v. Bondi, 606 U.S. 259, 274–75 (2025) (holding that the thirty-day deadline for filing a petition for review is a nonjurisdictional claim-processing rule); Suate-Orellana v. Garland, 101 F.4th 624, 629 (9th Cir. 2024) (noting that mandatory claim-processing rules must be enforced if properly raised by a party). The BIA’s decision denying reopening issued on September 22, 2022, and Petitioner filed his petition for review more than thirty days later. 2. The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying Petitioner’s motion to reconsider. See Ayala v. Sessions, 855 F.3d 1012, 1020 (9th Cir. 2017) (stating the standard of review). a. The BIA adequately explained its decision to deny reconsideration of its denial of reopening. The BIA must consider the relevant evidence and explain the basis for its decision, see Franco-Rosendo v. Gonzales, 454 F.3d 965, 966 (9th Cir. 2006) (discussing the abuse of discretion standard for a motion to reopen), but “the BIA ‘does not have to write an exegesis on every contention,’” Agonafer v. Sessions, 859 F.3d 1198, 1206 (9th Cir. 2017) (citation omitted). The BIA reiterated its earlier determination that Petitioner was not likely to establish the 2 22-2032 level of hardship required to receive cancellation of removal. In turn, the decision denying Petitioner’s motion to reopen reflects that the BIA considered evidence of his daughter’s mental health diagnoses and treatment, along with the record as a whole. b. The BIA did not abuse its discretion by determining that Petitioner failed to establish prima facie eligibility for cancellation of removal. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010) (stating reasons for denying a motion to reopen). Petitioner’s motion to reconsider challenged the BIA’s evaluation of his evidence, but not the legal standard that the BIA used. We therefore do not consider whether the BIA applied the correct legal standard. See Umana-Escobar v. Garland, 69 F.4th 544, 550 (9th Cir. 2023) (discussing the requirement of exhaustion).2 And, as a factual matter, the BIA’s evaluation of Petitioner’s evidence of potential hardship was not arbitrary or irrational. See Lona v. Barr, 958 F.3d 1225, 1229 (9th Cir. 2020) (describing the abuse of discretion standard). PETITION DENIED. 2 Even if Petitioner’s motion to reconsider could be construed as raising a legal argument, Petitioner forfeited any challenge to the legal standard by failing to raise it in his opening brief. We decline to overlook that forfeiture. 3 22-2032
Sources
- Official opinionPrimary record
Public record. Timeline facts only; no accusation of wrongdoing. Advisory citizen opinion does not form a citizen mandate.