Tania De La Cruz Lara v. Pamela Bondi

USCA4 Appeal: 24-1941 Doc: 21 Filed: 07/31/2025 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 24-1941 TANIA DE LA CRUZ LARA, Petitioner, v. PAMELA JO BONDI, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: July 29, 2025 Decided: July 31, 2025 Before KING, WYNN, and BERNER, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. ON BRIEF: Arnedo S. Valera, LAW OFFICES OF VALERA & ASSOCIATES, P.C., Fairfax, Virginia, for Petitioner. Brian M. Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, John S. Hogan, Assistant Director, Robbin K. Blaya, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-1941 Doc: 21 Filed: 07/31/2025 Pg: 2 of 2 PER CURIAM: Tania De La Cruz Lara, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissing her appeal from the immigration judge’s denial of De La Cruz Lara’s application for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1). In denying cancellation of removal, the immigration judge found, in relevant part, that De La Cruz Lara failed to show that her removal would cause an exceptional and extremely unusual hardship for De La Cruz Lara’s two U.S.-citizen sons. We review this determination as a mixed question of fact and law, Wilkinson v. Garland, 601 U.S. 209, 225 (2024), deferring to the agency’s rulings on the issue, Cortes v. Garland, 105 F.4th 124, 133-34 (4th Cir. 2024). We have reviewed the administrative record in conjunction with the arguments advanced by De La Cruz Lara and conclude that, under any standard, there is no error in the agency’s dispositive hardship analysis. Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. See In re De La Cruz Lara (B.I.A. Aug. 29, 2024). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal questions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. PETITION DENIED 2