9th Circuit denies petition from Mexican citizen seeking to avoid deportation, finding her removal would…
Moreno-Arias 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 from Mexican citizen seeking to avoid deportation, finding her removal would not cause 'exceptional and extremely unusual hardship' to her U.S. citizen family members.
Why it matters
The Ninth Circuit denied Ana Cecilia Moreno-Arias's petition to review a Board of Immigration Appeals decision that upheld an immigration judge's denial of cancellation of removal. The court found that substantial evidence supported the BIA's conclusion that her removal would not cause 'exceptional and extremely unusual hardship' to her U.S. citizen mother, daughter, and son. While the court acknowledged her removal would cause real emotional and financial hardship to her family, the record did not compel a finding that this hardship went substantially beyond what is normally expected when a close family member is deported.
Who it affects
This ruling directly affects Ana Cecilia Moreno-Arias and her U.S. citizen family members. More broadly, it is relevant to non-citizens seeking cancellation of removal who must demonstrate that their deportation would cause exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to qualifying U.S. citizen or permanent resident relatives.
What happens next
Current
Decision issued Jul 14, 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Unpublished opinion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 14, 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Jul 14, 2026 · Unpublished opinion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
Ana Cecilia Moreno-Arias, a native and citizen of Mexico, sought cancellation of removal, a form of immigration relief that allows certain long-term residents to avoid deportation if, among other requirements, their removal would cause 'exceptional and extremely unusual hardship' to qualifying U.S. citizen or permanent resident family members. An immigration judge denied her application, and the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissed her appeal. She then petitioned the Ninth Circuit for review. The central question was whether the BIA correctly concluded that Moreno-Arias had not shown the required level of hardship to her qualifying relatives, which included her U.S. citizen mother, daughter, and son. The court reviewed that question under a 'substantial evidence' standard, meaning it would only overturn the BIA if the record compelled a different conclusion. The court acknowledged that Moreno-Arias is a hardworking and loving mother and daughter, and that her removal would undoubtedly cause her family emotional and financial suffering. However, the court held that the record did not compel the conclusion that this hardship was substantially different from or beyond what would normally be expected when any close family member is deported. That is the legal threshold set by federal statute and BIA precedent, and the court found it was not met here. The court also rejected two additional arguments from Moreno-Arias. First, it disagreed that the BIA had failed to consider all relevant facts, finding instead that the BIA had addressed the highly probative and potentially decisive evidence. Second, it found no error in the BIA considering her potential future path to lawful immigration as a factor weighing against a hardship finding, consistent with prior Ninth Circuit precedent. The opinion was unanimous and marked as not for publication, meaning it does not set binding precedent beyond this case.
CITATION AND RECORD
Record source: CourtListener
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 14 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ANA CECILIA MORENO-ARIAS, No. 24-6885 Agency No. Petitioner, A205-648-478 v. MEMORANDUM* TODD BLANCHE, Acting Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted July 10, 2026** Portland, Oregon Before: GRABER, BERZON, and SUNG, Circuit Judges. Petitioner Ana Cecilia Moreno-Arias, a native and citizen of Mexico, timely seeks review of a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing her appeal of an immigration judge’s denial of cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition. * 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). Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Petitioner failed to show that her removal would cause “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” to her mother, daughter, or son, each of whom is a United States citizen. 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(D); see Gonzalez-Juarez v. Bondi, 137 F.4th 996, 1003 (9th Cir. 2025) (holding that we review for substantial evidence the question whether the BIA erred in applying the “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” standard to the established facts). Petitioner is a loving daughter and mother who works hard to support her family. And, as the BIA recognized, Petitioner’s removal undoubtedly would cause her qualifying relatives to suffer emotional and financial hardship. But the record does not compel the conclusion, see Umana-Escobar v. Garland, 69 F.4th 544, 550 (9th Cir. 2023), that such hardship would be “‘substantially different from, or beyond, that which would normally be expected from the deportation’ of a ‘close family member,’” Wilkinson v. Garland, 601 U.S. 209, 222 (2024) (alteration adopted) (quoting Matter of Monreal-Aguinaga, 23 I. & N. Dec. 56, 65 (BIA 2001)).1 1 To the extent Petitioner argues that the BIA failed to consider all the facts, we disagree with her reading of the decision. See Gonzalez-Juarez, 137 F.4th at 1008 (rejecting the petitioner’s argument that “the BIA failed to give meaningful consideration” to certain evidence related to hardship because “the BIA [had] discussed all evidence that was highly probative or potentially dispositive”). In addition, the BIA did not err when it considered Petitioner’s possible path to future lawful immigration as a factor that weighed against a finding of hardship. See Arteaga-De Alvarez v. Holder, 704 F.3d 730, 741 (9th Cir. 2012) (noting that an 2 24-6885 Petition DENIED. alternative means of immigrating to the United States can be a negative factor in a hardship determination). 3 24-6885
Sources
- Official opinionPrimary record
Public record. Timeline facts only; no accusation of wrongdoing. Advisory citizen opinion does not form a citizen mandate.