United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
No. 25-2029
CARLOS RENE ESPINOZA BENITEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
TODD BLANCHE, Attorney General,
Respondent.
PETITION FOR REVIEW OF AN ORDER OF
THE BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS
Before
Rikelman, Lynch, and Aframe,
Circuit Judges.
Kristian R. Meyer, Kevin P. MacMurray, and MacMurray &
Associates on brief for petitioner.
Marie V. Robinson, Attorney, United States Department of
Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation, Brett A. Shumate,
Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division, and Cindy S. Ferrier, Assistant Director, Office of Immigration Litigation, on brief for respondent.
September 1, 2026
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2),
Todd Blanche has been substituted for Pamela J. Bondi as Attorney General.
LYNCH, Circuit Judge. Carlos Rene Espinoza Benitez
("Espinoza"), a native and citizen of El Salvador, seeks review of
the decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") affirming
the Immigration Judge's ("IJ") denial of cancellation of removal.
In 2018, after the Department of Homeland Security ("DHS") started
removal proceedings, Espinoza conceded removability and sought
cancellation of removal on the grounds that it would result in
"exceptional and extremely unusual hardship," 8 U.S.C.
§ 1229b(b)(1)(D), to his two U.S. citizen children: his daughter,
D.E., who was nineteen years old in 2020, and his son, J.P.E., who
was then seventeen years old. Espinoza argued that, if removed to
El Salvador, he would not be able to provide J.P.E. with his
necessary asthma medication. He did not make a similar argument
as to D.E.
The IJ, after an evidentiary hearing, held that Espinoza
had failed to meet his burden to establish exceptional and
extremely unusual hardship, including that Espinoza failed to
demonstrate that J.P.E.'s asthma constituted a serious medical
condition or that, even if it did, he could not obtain medical
treatment for J.P.E.'s condition in El Salvador. We deny
Espinoza's petition.
I.
Espinoza entered the United States in 2000 on a visa and
overstayed its expiration in 2001. In 2018, DHS charged Espinoza
- 2 -as subject to removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(B). Espinoza
conceded removability and applied for cancellation of removal,
claiming that it would result in "exceptional and extremely unusual
hardship" to his children under § 1229b(b)(1)(D). In his removal
proceedings, Espinoza provided documents and testimony showing
that his son suffered from asthma, is treated with medications,
including an inhaler, and was hospitalized in 2014 for an asthma
attack and in 2020 for COVID-19 symptoms. He also testified that
he primarily supports their household working as a dental
assistant, while his wife works at a box assembly company. He
testified that he pays for a majority of household expenses, and
that his wife would be unable to afford their expenses if he were
removed. Espinoza testified that although he received a college
degree in dentistry in El Salvador, he would struggle to find a
dentist position there, would make less money if he found one, and
would be vulnerable to extortion by gangs. Espinoza testified
that he believed he would not be able to afford J.P.E.'s asthma
medications in El Salvador but admitted that he did not know their
costs.
The IJ assumed, but did not find, that Espinoza was
credible. The IJ denied Espinoza's application for cancellation
of removal, finding that Espinoza had provided no precise testimony
or corroborating evidence as to the cost or availability of asthma
medications and treatment, or that Espinoza and his wife could not
- 3 -afford the medications in El Salvador. The IJ concluded that
Espinoza "failed to demonstrate the requisite exceptional and
extremely unusual hardship" to his children that would qualify
Espinoza for cancellation of removal under § 1229b(b)(1)(D). The
BIA affirmed the IJ's ruling without opinion.
II.
Where, as here, the BIA affirms without a separate
opinion, we review the IJ's opinion as the final agency decision.
See Castillo-Diaz v. Holder, 562 F.3d 23, 26 (1st Cir. 2009).
Under Wilkinson v. Garland, 601 U.S. 209 (2024), our review is
restricted to the agency's "application of the exceptional and
extremely unusual hardship standard to a given set of facts." Id.
at 217. And "[b]ecause this mixed question is primarily factual,
that review is deferential." Id. at 225. This court "is still
without jurisdiction to review a factual question raised in an
application for discretionary relief." Id. at 222; see also
Argueta Castillo v. Blanche, 177 F.4th 307, 312 (1st Cir. 2026)
(quoting Wilkinson, 601 U.S. at 225); Samayoa v. Bondi, 146 F.4th
128, 136 (1st Cir. 2025) ("This scheme bars us from reviewing the
facts underlying the [a]gency's determination, but we retain
jurisdiction to review questions of law, including the application
of a legal standard to a given set of adjudicated facts.").
Accepting the IJ's factual findings, we review her
application of § 1229b(b)(1)(D) to the facts as a mixed question
- 4 -of law and fact reviewable under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D).
Wilkinson, 601 U.S. at 222. "Our review is deferential." Figueroa
v. Garland, 119 F.4th 160, 166 (1st Cir. 2024) (citing Wilkinson,
601 U.S. at 225). And although this circuit has not defined the
precise standard of review that should govern, we need not do so
here because we would reach the same conclusion under any
deferential standard of review. See Id. at 166 n.7.1
III.
A petitioner bringing an extreme hardship claim has the
burden of proving "that h[is] qualifying relatives would suffer
hardship that is substantially different from, or beyond, that
which would normally be expected from the deportation of" a
noncitizen with close relatives in the United States. Cano v.
Bondi, 152 F.4th 237, 245 (1st Cir. 2025) (quoting Tacuri-Tacuri
v. Garland, 998 F.3d 466, 472 (1st Cir. 2021), abrogation on other
grounds recognized by Figueroa, 119 F.4th at 165).
Espinoza argues that the IJ departed from agency law in
holding that he did not meet his burden. The IJ applied four BIA
1Espinoza cites Loper Bright Enterprises (Loper Bright) v.
Raimondo, 603 U.S. 369 (2024), to suggest that the agency is only entitled to deference if it engaged in "reasoned decisionmaking." We need not decide whether Loper Bright provides the relevant
standard of review because even if so, the IJ engaged in "reasoned decisionmaking" and Espinoza's claim fails. See Nolasco v. Bondi, 134 F.4th 677, 682 (1st Cir. 2025) (declining to decide whether Loper Bright applies since petitioners would lose under a de novo standard of review).
- 5 -decisions that dealt with the exceptional and extremely unusual
hardship standard: Matter of J-J-G-, 27 I. & N. Dec. 808 (BIA
2020), Matter of Gonzalez Recinas, 23 I. & N. Dec. 467 (BIA 2002),
Matter of Andazola-Rivas, 23 I. & N. Dec. 319 (BIA 2002), and
Matter of Monreal-Aguinaga, 23 I. & N. Dec. 56 (BIA 2001).
Monreal-Aguinaga provides factors for IJs to weigh in the aggregate
to determine whether a petitioner has met the standard.2 23 I. &
N. Dec. at 63-64. The IJ applied the Monreal-Aguinaga factors and
situated Espinoza's case among the other BIA precedents that have
applied the same factors. Contrary to Espinoza's argument, the IJ
weighed the relevant factors in the aggregate, and reasonably
determined that he failed to meet his burden.
The factor most relevant to Espinoza's application is
"the health of . . . qualifying family members," such as a "child
with very serious health issues." Id. at 63. The IJ applied this
agency law when finding that J.P.E.'s asthma was not a serious
medical condition based on evidence that the asthma was treatable,
under control, and had required a hospital visit. Alternatively,
the IJ determined that even if J.P.E.'s asthma were a serious
medical condition, Espinoza failed to meet his burden to show that
2 Espinoza does not challenge the holdings of these BIA
decisions and so this opinion should not be taken as an endorsement of the BIA's approach to evaluating the exceptional and extremely unusual hardship standard. We discuss these precedents for the limited purpose of deciding petitioner's claim that the IJ departed from agency law.
- 6 -he could not obtain treatment for J.P.E.'s condition in El
Salvador, and so the fact of the medical condition did not support
a hardship finding. To the extent Espinoza challenges the IJ's
factual findings about J.P.E's asthma that supported her ultimate
lack of hardship determination, we do not have jurisdiction to
review those underlying factual findings. See Xirum v. Bondi, 141
F.4th 345, 352-53 (1st Cir. 2025). And to the extent he contends
that the IJ ignored relevant evidence about J.P.E.'s medical
condition altogether, which is a legal claim that we have
jurisdiction to review de novo, see id. at 353-54, we reject that
claim. The IJ expressly discussed J.P.E.'s asthma, the medications
Espinoza needs to treat J.P.E.'s asthma, J.P.E.'s two visits to
the hospital, and Espinoza's concerns that he would be unable to
obtain that medication at an affordable price in El Salvador and
that Espinoza and J.P.E. would live about forty-five minutes from
a hospital if they returned. But the IJ concluded that the
evidence presented on these issues was not enough to bring any
hardship to the "exceptional and extremely unusual" level required
by the statute. The IJ did not overlook this evidence.
The IJ applied BIA precedent and properly found that
none of the other factors, individually or cumulatively, are
substantially beyond that which would ordinarily be expected in
cases of removal. For example, the IJ rejected the argument that
Espinoza's case was similar to Gonzalez Recinas, in which the BIA
- 7 -applied the Monreal-Aguinaga factors and found exceptional and
extremely unusual hardship. See 23 I. & N. Dec. at 469-73. In
Gonzalez Recinas, the respondent was a single mother and sole
provider to six children who did not speak Spanish and had no
family ties in Mexico. Id. at 471. Those factors, along with the
diminished educational and financial opportunities, lack of
relatives in Mexico, and other factors, were enough to demonstrate
sufficient hardship. Id. at 472. Conversely, here, the IJ noted
that Espinoza has only two children, whom he provides for with his
spouse. Unlike in Gonzalez Recinas, both children are fluent in
Spanish. Although El Salvador would provide the children a lower
standard of living and moving there would subject them to emotional
hardship, the IJ determined that such factors were insufficient
even when considered with the rest of the factors to constitute
exceptional and extremely unusual hardship beyond that which would
normally be expected from the deportation of a noncitizen.
The petition for review is denied.
- 8 -