United States v. Saul Pineda

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 25-1062
___________________________
Jose Luis Ramirez Cruz
lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioner
v.
Todd Blanche, Acting Attorney General of the United States; Markwayne Mullin,
Secretary, Department of Homeland Security; David Venturella, Acting Director,
Immigration and Customs Enforcement1
lllllllllllllllllllllRespondents
____________
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
____________
Submitted: June 9, 2026
Filed: June 12, 2026
[Unpublished]
____________
Before GRUENDER, BENTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.
____________
1Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2), Todd Blanche is
automatically substituted as respondent in place of Pamela Bondi, Markwayne Mullin
is automatically substituted in place of Kristi Noem, and David Venturella is
automatically substituted in place of Todd Lyons.

-- 1 of 5 --

PER CURIAM.
Mexican citizen Jose Ramirez Cruz petitions for review of an order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) which denied his motion to reopen and remand
proceedings. We deny the petition.
Ramirez Cruz entered the United States at an unknown location and on a date
unknown. In October 2019, an immigration judge denied him cancellation of removal
because he failed to show his removal would result in exceptional and extremely
unusual hardship to his qualifying relatives, see 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1); the BIA
affirmed the IJ’s decision and dismissed the appeal. Ramirez did not petition this
court for review. Ramirez Cruz married Erika Sanchez in February 2023. He then
filed with the BIA a motion to reopen and remand proceedings based on new facts
which he asserted supported a finding of exceptional and extremely unusual hardship.
The BIA denied the motion, reasoning that the evidence was insufficient to conclude
the hardship his qualifying wife and stepchildren would endure would be beyond that
which would ordinarily be expected to result from Ramirez Cruz’s removal.
Observing that Ramirez Cruz had submitted with his motion proof that the agency
had received Sanchez’s petition for alien relative, the BIA also considered whether
reopening may be warranted so he could pursue adjustment of status pending the
outcome of the petition. See Matter of Velarde-Pacheco, 23 I&N Dec. 253, 256 (BIA
2002) (factors agency must consider in evaluating motion to reopen to apply for
adjustment of status based on pending family-based visa petition); see also Matter of
Lamus-Pava, 25 I&N Dec. 61, 65 (BIA 2009) (modifying factors set forth in Velarde-
Pacheco). The BIA nevertheless determined reopening was unwarranted because the
motion included insufficient evidence that Ramirez Cruz’s marriage to Sanchez was
bona fide.
Ramirez Cruz first argues that reopening was warranted because he established
that his removal would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to his
-2-

-- 2 of 5 --

wife and stepchildren. We conclude that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in
denying his motion to reopen and remand so he could pursue cancellation of removal.
See Manyary v. Bondi, 129 F.4th 473, 477 (8th Cir. 2025) (standard of review); 8
U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7) (motions to reopen). An abuse of discretion occurs when the
BIA “gives no rational explanation for its decision, departs from its established
policies without explanation, relies on impermissible factors or legal error, or ignores
or distorts the record evidence.” See Islas-Saldana v. Garland, 59 F.4th 927, 930 (8th
Cir. 2023) (citation omitted). The BIA may deny reopening if the movant fails to
establish a prima facie case for the relief sought; the movant fails to introduce
previously unavailable, material evidence; or the BIA determines that, even if those
requirements were met, the movant would not be entitled to the discretionary grant
of relief sought. See Robles v. Garland, 23 F.4th 1061, 1064 (8th Cir. 2022); cf.
Caballero-Martinez v. Barr, 920 F.3d 543, 548 (8th Cir. 2019) (BIA will reopen only
if noncitizen meets heavy burden of showing that new evidence would likely change
the result). 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 & n.2 (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).
The evidence was sufficient for a reasonable factfinder to conclude that any
hardship to Ramirez Cruz’s wife and stepchildren would not be substantially different
from or beyond that which would normally be expected to result from his deportation.
See Alonso-Juarez, 169 F.4th at 794, 796. The record contradicts Ramirez Cruz’s
assertion that the BIA failed to consider all of the hardship evidence he presented
with his motion. See Jama v. Wilkinson, 990 F.3d 1109, 1118 (8th Cir. 2021)
(rejecting argument that agency failed to adequately consider certain evidence where
it referenced record in its decision; agency has “no duty to write an exegesis on every
-3-

-- 3 of 5 --

contention, but must consider issues raised, and announce its decision in terms
sufficient to enable a reviewing court to perceive that it has heard and thought and
[not] merely reacted”) (citation omitted and cleaned up); Averianova v. Holder, 592
F.3d 931, 936 (8th Cir. 2010) (noting BIA need not list every positive and negative
factor in its decision, and it is the petitioner’s burden to show that the BIA did not
review the record when it considered the appeal) (citations and internal quotation
marks omitted). To the extent Ramirez Cruz argues that the BIA focused exclusively
on Sanchez’s mental health or misrepresented the evidence as it related to her, we
disagree; and to the extent he suggests the BIA should have considered additional
factors in its hardship analysis, we agree with the government that he did not present
evidence to suggest such factors were at play. See Gonzalez-Rivas v. Garland, 109
F.4th 1010, 1012 (8th Cir. 2024) (upholding adverse hardship determination where
BIA “had a complete picture of the hardship claimed”); see also 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252(d)(1); Santos-Zacaria v. Garland, 598 U.S. 411, 423 (2023) (exhaustion
requirement in § 1252(d)(1) is non-jurisdictional claim-processing rule subject to
waiver or forfeiture); Essel v. Garland, 89 F.4th 686, 691 (8th Cir. 2023) (while
exhaustion requirement is not jurisdictional, it is appropriate when proceedings before
IJ and BIA were adversarial in nature and petitioner was represented by counsel).
Ramirez Cruz also argues that the evidence was sufficient to establish his
marriage is bona fide, and accordingly, reopening was warranted to permit him to
apply for adjustment of status based on the pending visa petition. The government
asserts that Ramirez Cruz never raised the claim before the agency, and in any event,
Ramirez Cruz is ineligible for the relief. We decline to address the merits of this
claim, because the record does not establish that the claim has been exhausted. See
8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1); Santos-Zacaria, 598 U.S. at 423; see also Rafiyev v. Mukasey,
536 F.3d 853, 858 (8th Cir. 2008) (concluding exhaustion concerns had not been
satisfied because, inter alia, petitioner did not brief matter before BIA, and
government only briefly addressed issue; record was too meager to “decide whether
arguments by [the government] or discussion by the BIA ever can exhaust an issue
-4-

-- 4 of 5 --

not raised by the petitioner”); cf. Margolin v. Nat’l Ass’n of Immigr. Judges, No.
25-767, 2026 WL 1463466, at *2 (U.S. May 26, 2026) (concluding court violated
party-presentation principle when it decided a case “different from the one respondent
advanced” and that the government never had the chance to address) (internal
quotation marks and citation omitted).
Accordingly, we deny the petition for review.
______________________________
-5-

-- 5 of 5 --