Elisa Lopez-Vasquez v. Pamela Bondi

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 25-1094
___________________________
Martha Celestina Ramos Perez
lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioner
v.
Todd Blanche, Acting Attorney General of the United States1
lllllllllllllllllllllRespondent
____________
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
____________
Submitted: May 6, 2026
Filed: May 11, 2026
[Unpublished]
____________
Before LOKEN, SMITH, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Guatemalan citizen Martha Celestina Ramos Perez petitions for review of an
order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), which affirmed an immigration
1Todd Blanche is automatically substituted as respondent in place of Pamela
Bondi pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2).

-- 1 of 3 --

judge’s decision denying her application for cancellation of removal. She challenges
the agency’s determination that she failed to establish her removal would result in
“exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” to her United States citizen children.
See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1). We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s factual
findings underlying the hardship determination, but we retain jurisdiction to review
the application of the hardship standard to undisputed or established facts. See
8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D); Wilkinson v. Garland, 601 U.S. 209, 212, 217-18, 225
(2024). Our review of the hardship determination is for substantial evidence, and we
will not overturn it unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude
to the contrary. See Alonso-Juarez v. Bondi, 169 F.4th 789, 794-96 (8th Cir. 2026);
see also Urias-Orellana v. Bondi, 146 S. Ct. 845, 851 (2026).
Considering the record as a whole, there was sufficient evidence for a
reasonable fact finder to conclude that any hardship to Ramos Perez’s children would
not be substantially different from, or beyond, that which would normally be expected
to result from deportation. See Alonso-Juarez, 169 F.4th at 796. The record shows
that the agency individually and cumulatively considered the familial, financial,
emotional, and other hardships the children might face if Ramos Perez were removed.
See Garcia-Pascual v. Bondi, 143 F.4th 910, 914 (8th Cir. 2025). Her hardship claim
was based primarily on school-related issues with one child, but there was sufficient
evidence that the child’s situation was not exceptional and extremely unusual,
especially given that Ramos Perez planned to leave the children in the United States
in the care of their father. Further, there was sufficient evidence that a possible lower
standard of living, even when considered aggregately with other factors, was not
substantially beyond what is typically expected. See Alonso-Juarez, 169 F.4th at 793,
796; Garcia-Pascual, 143 F.4th at 913; Gonzalez-Rivas v. Garland, 109 F.4th 1010,
1012 (8th Cir. 2024). We are unpersuaded that Matter of Recinas, 23 I. & N. Dec.
467 (BIA 2002), which is materially distinguishable from her case, compels a
different result. See Tejado v. Holder, 776 F.3d 965, 969 (8th Cir. 2015) (per
curiam).
-2-

-- 2 of 3 --

Ramos Perez has not shown that the agency misapplied the hardship standard.
See Gonzalez-Rivas, 109 F.4th at 1012. Accordingly, we deny the petition for
review. See 8th Cir. Rule 47B.
______________________________
-3-

-- 3 of 3 --