NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 23 2026

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

LUIS GALVAN CAMARILLO, No. 20-71046 Agency No. Petitioner, A201-237-417 v.

MEMORANDUM*

PAMELA BONDI, Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted February 18, 2026**

Before: McKEOWN, FORREST, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.

Luis Galvan Camarillo seeks review of a Board of Immigration Appeals

(“BIA”) decision affirming the denial of his application for cancellation of

removal. The only question before us is whether Galvan Camarillo satisfied his

burden under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(D) to demonstrate “exceptional and

* 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). extremely unusual hardship” to a qualifying relative. “Where, as here, the BIA

agrees with the [Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”s)] decision and also adds its own

reasoning, we review the decision of the BIA and those parts of the IJ’s decision

upon which it relies.” Duran-Rodriguez v. Barr, 918 F.3d 1025, 1027–28 (9th Cir.

2019). We review BIA and IJ hardship determinations for substantial evidence.

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

jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D), and we deny the petition.

The BIA and IJ properly declined to consider any hardship based on the

possibility that Galvan Camarillo’s daughter would accompany him to Mexico

upon removal. The IJ found, consistent with Galvan Camarillo’s testimony, that his

daughter “w[ould] remain . . . in the United States.” Although we review the

ultimate hardship determination for substantial evidence, we lack jurisdiction to

review that “underlying” question of fact. Wilkinson v. Garland, 601 U.S. 209, 219

(2024). Even if we could review the IJ’s finding, Galvan Camarillo points to no

contrary evidence that the IJ failed to consider.

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s and IJ’s determination that Galvan

Camarillo’s daughter would not suffer “exceptional and extremely unusual

hardship” from remaining in the United States. The IJ addressed all the factors that

Galvan Camarillo raises in support of a hardship showing, including the “financial

support” Galvan Camarillo provides his daughter and their “emotional

2 20-71046 connection,” and considered the “cumulative[]” effect that removal would have.

The IJ went on to explain that while some hardship would result, there was no

evidence of extenuating circumstances like “serious health issues” or “compelling

special needs in school” that would require Galvan Camarillo’s presence. See

Gonzalez-Juarez, 137 F.4th at 1006. Indeed, the IJ found that neither Galvan

Camarillo’s daughter’s education nor her healthcare situation would change upon

his removal. It was therefore reasonable to determine that any resulting harm

would not “deviate, in the extreme, from the norm.” Id.

PETITION DENIED.

3 20-71046