Diego Herlindo Morales-Ortega v. James R. McHenry, III,1 Acting Attorney General of the United States

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 24-1910
___________________________
Diego Herlindo Morales-Ortega
Petitioner
v.
James R. McHenry, III,1 Acting Attorney General of the United States
Respondent
____________
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
____________
Submitted: January 13, 2025
Filed: January 24, 2025
[Unpublished]
____________
Before BENTON, GRASZ, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Guatemalan citizen Diego Morales-Ortega petitions for review of an order of
the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying him cancellation of removal.
Having jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, this court denies the petition.
1 Acting Attorney General McHenry is automatically substituted for his
predecessor under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2).

-- 1 of 2 --

-2-
Morales-Ortega challenges the agency’s determination that he did not
demonstrate his United States citizen children will suffer exceptional and extremely
unusual hardship upon his removal, see 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1). This court has
jurisdiction to review the application of the statutory exceptional and extremely
unusual hardship standard to an undisputed set of facts. See Wilkinson v. Garland,
601 U.S. 209, 217 (2024). Because this mixed question of law and fact is primarily
factual, our review is deferential. See id. at 225; Gonzalez-Rivas v. Garland, 109
F.4th 1010, 1012 (8th Cir. 2024). The record shows that the immigration judge
considered the financial, familial, and emotional burdens Morales-Ortega’s children
would face if he were removed, and the temporary but serious health struggles of his
partner, and concluded that the hardship, while significant, did not meet the
exceptional and extremely unusual standard. The BIA affirmed the immigration
judge’s findings; considered the youngest child’s newly diagnosed medical
concerns; determined that Morales-Ortega did not present evidence that the youngest
child would be unable to obtain adequate treatment upon Morales-Ortega’s removal;
and concluded that he did not meet the required burden of proof. See Wilkinson, 601
U.S. at 215 (citing In re Monreal-Aguinaga, 23 I. & N. Dec. 56 (BIA 2001)).
This court concludes that Morales-Ortega has not shown that the BIA failed
to consider all of the relevant hardship factors or otherwise erred in its hardship
analysis. Accordingly, the petition is denied. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
______________________________

-- 2 of 2 --