facts. Gonzalez-Juarez v. Bondi, 137 F.4th 996, 1005 (9th Cir. 2025). We review

the denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. Perez-Camacho v.

Garland, 54 F.4th 597, 603 (9th Cir. 2022). We deny the petitions for review.

1. To be eligible for cancellation of removal, an applicant must meet four

statutory criteria, including showing that their removal would result in an

“exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” to a qualifying relative. 8 U.S.C.

§ 1229b(b)(1)(D). To meet this requirement, an applicant must establish that their

removal will result in hardship to a qualifying relative that is substantially different

from, or beyond, the hardship ordinarily associated with removal from the United

States. Gonzalez-Juarez, 137 F.4th at 1006.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that, under the

totality of the circumstances, Herrera had not shown that his removal would result

in an exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to his U.S.-citizen wife and two

U.S.-citizen children from his first marriage. Herrera contends that his wife suffers

from psychological and medical issues, and depends on him financially, physically,

2 and emotionally. However, the agency found that Herrera had not established that

his wife suffers from serious ongoing medical issues which rise to the level of

exceptional and extremely unusual hardship. The agency noted that the only

medical records Herrera provided were regarding his wife’s chronic migraines.

The agency also considered that his wife has government medical benefits and a

nearby adult son potentially able to provide emotional support.

2. After the BIA denied cancellation of removal, Herrera filed a motion to

reopen to provide medical records for his wife that were not previously submitted.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying the motion to reopen on the

ground that Herrera failed to show that the evidence was previously unavailable or

could not have been presented at his prior hearing before the IJ. See 8 C.F.R.

§ 1003.2(c)(1) (“A motion to reopen proceedings shall not be granted unless it

appears to the Board that evidence sought to be offered is material and was not

available and could not have been discovered or presented at the former hearing.”).

Although some of the evidence postdated the IJ hearing, it did not reflect

significant changes to the facts presented to the IJ, and Herrera did not explain why

similar evidence could not have been presented before the IJ.

PETITIONS FOR REVEW DENIED.1

1 The motions for stay of removal are denied.

3