NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SERGIO ANTONIO HERNANDEZ-
GODINEZ,
Petitioner, v.
TODD BLANCHE, Acting Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 23-1326
Agency No.
A200-280-991
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 29, 2026**
Before: McKEOWN, TALLMAN, and MENDOZA, JR., Circuit Judges. Sergio Antonio Hernandez-Godinez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's decision denying his application for * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
AUG 3 2026
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
1
2 23-1326 cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence whether the agency erred in applying the exceptional and extremely unusual hardship standard to a given set of facts. Gonzalez-Juarez v. Bondi, 137 F.4th 996, 1003 (9th Cir. 2025). We review de novo questions of law and constitutional claims. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency's determination that Hernandez- Godinez has not shown exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to qualifying relatives. See Gonzalez-Juarez, 137 F.4th at 1006 (petitioner must show hardship
"substantially beyond the ordinary hardship that would be expected when a close family member leaves the country" (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
We reject as unsupported by the record Hernandez-Godinez's contention that the agency conducted an inadequate hardship analysis. Hernandez-Godinez's claim that the agency violated due process by misconstruing evidence fails because he has not shown error. See Padilla-Martinez
v. Holder, 770 F.3d 825, 830 (9th Cir. 2014) ("To prevail on a due-process claim, a petitioner must demonstrate both a violation of rights and prejudice."). All pending motions are denied as moot.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2