In a recent ruling, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied the immigration appeal of Ramiro Nunez-Reyes, a native of Mexico, who sought to avoid removal from the United States. The court affirmed the Board of Immigration Appeals' decision, which stated that Nunez-Reyes did not demonstrate that his removal would cause exceptional hardship to his U.S. citizen daughter. This case is significant as it highlights the challenges faced by individuals in immigration proceedings, particularly when it comes to proving the level of hardship that would result from their removal.

The ruling, filed on October 27, 2026, under docket number 21-252, affects Nunez-Reyes and his family, particularly his daughter, who is a U.S. citizen. The decision underscores the importance of the legal standards that govern cancellation of removal cases, which require a showing of “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” for family members remaining in the U.S.

Background

Ramiro Nunez-Reyes is a Mexican national who has been living in the United States. He faced removal proceedings initiated by the government, which led him to seek cancellation of removal based on the potential impact on his daughter. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) reviewed his case after an immigration judge denied his request for relief. Nunez-Reyes argued that his removal would cause significant hardship to his daughter, who would remain in the U.S. with her mother.

The case reached the Ninth Circuit after Nunez-Reyes filed a petition for review of the BIA's order. His appeal focused on the claim that the BIA had not adequately considered the potential future hardships his daughter would face if he were removed from the country. This case highlights the complexities of immigration law and the high burden of proof required for cancellation of removal based on family hardship.

The Ruling

The Ninth Circuit ruled against Nunez-Reyes, affirming the BIA's decision. The court stated that it reviewed the BIA’s hardship determination under a “highly deferential” standard, meaning that the BIA's decisions are generally upheld unless there is clear evidence to the contrary. The court noted, “The record does not compel the conclusion that Nunez-Reyes’s daughter would suffer ‘out of the ordinary and exceedingly uncommon’ hardship if Nunez-Reyes were removed.”

The judges concluded that Nunez-Reyes’s daughter would continue to receive support from her mother, who would be able to provide emotional, physical, and financial assistance. The court also pointed out that Nunez-Reyes could likely find employment in Mexico, which would allow him to continue supporting his daughter financially. The judges emphasized that the BIA reasonably determined that the hardship Nunez-Reyes’s daughter would face did not meet the high threshold required for cancellation of removal.

Impact

This ruling has significant implications for individuals seeking cancellation of removal based on family hardship. It reinforces the necessity for petitioners to provide compelling evidence of exceptional hardship, which is a high bar to meet. The decision may discourage others in similar situations from pursuing appeals if they cannot demonstrate that their circumstances align with the stringent requirements set by immigration law.

The ruling also highlights the importance of family dynamics in immigration cases, particularly how the support of other family members can mitigate claims of hardship. As immigration laws continue to evolve, this case serves as a reminder of the challenges faced by immigrants and their families in navigating the legal system.

What's Next

Details were not available in the court filing regarding whether Nunez-Reyes plans to appeal the decision further. However, the ruling by the Ninth Circuit is final unless a higher court, such as the U.S. Supreme Court, decides to take up the case. There are no related cases pending that were mentioned in the opinion.