Monterde v. Bondi
Monterde
Court
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
Decided
June 9, 2025
Jurisdiction
F
Importance
48%
Practice Areas
Case Summary
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 9 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT EUGENE FRANCIS MENGUITO No. 24-2450 MONTERDE, Agency No. A087-171-123 Petitioner, v. MEMORANDUM* PAMELA BONDI, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submission Deferred March 19, 2025** Submitted June 6, 2025 Before: BOGGS,*** FRIEDLAND, and BRESS, Circuit Judges. Eugene Francis Menguito Monterde, a native and citizen of the Philippines, petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision dismissing * 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). *** The Honorable Danny J. Boggs, United States Circuit Judge for the Court of Appeals, 6th Circuit, sitting by designation. his appeal from an Immigration Judge (IJ) order denying his application for cancellation of removal. “Where, as here, the BIA cites Matter of Burbano, 20 I. & N. Dec. 872, 874 (BIA 1994) and also provides its own review of the evidence and law, we review both the IJ’s and the BIA’s decisions.” Cordoba v. Barr, 962 F.3d 479, 481 (9th Cir. 2020) (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition. 1. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that Monterde’s qualifying relatives, his two United States citizen children, would not experience “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” upon Monterde’s removal from the United States, and that Monterde is therefore ineligible for cancellation of removal. 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(D). Although we lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s ultimate discretionary decision whether to grant cancellation of removal or any underlying findings of fact, we have jurisdiction to review the agency’s hardship determination as a mixed question of law and fact under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D). See Wilkinson v. Garland, 601 U.S. 209, 212, 225 & n.4 (2024); Gonzalez-Juarez v. Bondi, ---F.4th---, 2025 WL 1440220, at *3 & n.2 (9th Cir. May 20, 2025). To demonstrate the required hardship, an alien must show hardship “that is substantially different from, or beyond, that which would normally be expected from the deportation of an alien with close family members [in the United States].” Gonzalez-Juarez, ---F.4th---, 2025 WL 1440220, at *8 (quoting In re Monreal- 2 24-2450 Aguinaga, 23 I. & N. Dec. 56, 65 (B.I.A. 2001)). In making this determination, the agency “evaluates ‘the ages, health, and circumstances’ of qualifying relatives.” Id. (quoting Monreal-Aguinaga, 23 I. & N. Dec. at 63). We review the agency’s hardship determination for substantial evidence. See id. at *7. “Under this standard, we must uphold the agency determination unless the evidence compels a contrary conclusion.” Duran-Rodriguez v. Barr, 918 F.3d 1025, 1028 (9th Cir. 2019). Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Monterde did not demonstrate the required hardship for purposes of cancellation of removal. Monterde testified that his family would accompany him to the Philippines in the event of his removal. The agency found that Monterde could find housing and work in the Philippines, that his children could adapt, and that the evidence did not show that his older child would face greater risk in the Philippines due to his peanut allergy. The agency also found that Monterde did not show that any of his children’s medical or schooling needs could not be met in the Philippines. Given these findings, the record does not compel the conclusion that Monterde’s children would experience exceptional and extremely unusual hardship in the event of his removal. See Gonzalez-Juarez, ---F.4th---, 2025 WL 1440220, at *9 (“[T]he hardship determination requires hardship that deviates, in the extreme, from the hardship that ordinarily occurs in removal cases.”). 2. Monterde argues that the agency violated his due-process rights by not 3 24-2450 expressly discussing his fear of retur
Case Details
Case Details
Legal case information
Status
Decided
Date Decided
June 9, 2025
Jurisdiction
F
Court Type
appellate
Legal Significance
Case importance metrics
Metadata
Additional information
Quick Actions
Case management tools
Case Summary
AI-generated comprehensive summary with legal analysis
Case Overview
Case Name: Monterde v. Bondi
Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Date: June 9, 2025
Citation: No. 24-2450
Eugene Francis Menguito Monterde, a native of the Philippines, petitioned for review of a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) that dismissed his appeal against an Immigration Judge's (IJ) order denying his application for cancellation of removal. The Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and ultimately denied Monterde's petition.
Key Legal Issues
- Cancellation of Removal: Eligibility criteria under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(D).
- Hardship Determination: Assessment of whether qualifying relatives would face "exceptional and extremely unusual hardship" if the petitioner were removed.
- Due Process Rights: Examination of whether the agency adequately considered Monterde's fear of returning to the Philippines.
Court's Decision
The Ninth Circuit upheld the BIA's decision, concluding that Monterde did not demonstrate the required hardship for cancellation of removal. The court found substantial evidence supporting the agency's conclusions regarding the potential impact on Monterde's U.S. citizen children.
Legal Reasoning
The court emphasized that:
- Substantial Evidence Standard: The agency's findings must be upheld unless the evidence compels a contrary conclusion.
- Hardship Criteria: To qualify for cancellation of removal, the hardship must be significantly greater than what is typically expected from deportation.
- Due Process Considerations: The BIA is not required to address every piece of evidence explicitly, as long as it demonstrates consideration of the overall record.
Key Holdings
- Monterde's U.S. citizen children would not experience exceptional hardship upon his removal.
- The BIA did not violate Monterde's due process rights by not explicitly discussing his fear of returning to the Philippines.
- The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying a remand for additional country-conditions evidence.
Precedents and Citations
- Matter of Burbano, 20 I. & N. Dec. 872 (BIA 1994): Cited for procedural standards in reviewing BIA decisions.
- Cordoba v. Barr, 962 F.3d 479 (9th Cir. 2020): Established the review framework for IJ and BIA decisions.
- Gonzalez-Juarez v. Bondi, 2025 WL 1440220 (9th Cir. May 20, 2025): Discussed the threshold for demonstrating exceptional hardship.
Practical Implications
This case underscores the stringent requirements for demonstrating hardship in immigration cases, particularly for cancellation of removal. Legal practitioners should note:
- The importance of presenting compelling evidence that exceeds typical hardship expectations.
- The necessity of addressing all relevant factors, including family circumstances and potential risks in the country of origin.
- The BIA's discretion in evaluating motions to remand and the standard of review applied by appellate courts.
In summary, the Ninth Circuit's decision in Monterde v. Bondi reinforces the challenges faced by petitioners seeking cancellation of removal based on family hardship, emphasizing the need for substantial evidence and the careful consideration of procedural rights.
Legal Topics
Areas of law covered in this case
Case Information
Detailed case metadata and classifications
Court Proceedings
Document Details
Legal Classification
Similar Cases
Cases with similar legal principles and precedents
Case Details
Legal case information
Status
Decided
Date Decided
June 9, 2025
Jurisdiction
F
Court Type
appellate
Legal Significance
Case importance metrics
Metadata
Additional information
Quick Actions
Case management tools