Aviles-Contreras

facts (as found by the Agency) do not establish the requisite hardship “unless any

reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” Id. at

1002 (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B)). However, we do not “have jurisdiction

over the IJ’s finding of ‘facts underlying any determination on cancellation of

removal,’ which ‘remain unreviewable.’” Id. at 1000 n.2 (quoting Wilkinson v.

Garland, 601 U.S. 209, 225 (2024)).

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Aviles-Contreras

failed to show extreme and unusual hardship, as required to qualify for cancellation

25-1425 of removal. 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(D). The record showed only that the hardship

Aviles-Contreras demonstrated was that which is expected when a close family

member is removed. See Gonzalez-Juarez, 137 F.4th at 1005–08. While Aviles-

Contreras presented evidence that his qualifying relatives may suffer emotional

and financial hardship upon his removal, the record does not compel the

conclusion that such hardship meets the exceptional and extremely unusual

hardship requirement. Id. at 999. Given the Agency’s factual findings,…