Check how courts have cited this case. Use our free citator for the most current treatment.
No. 10703627
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Medina-Araiza v. Bondi
No. 10703627 · Decided October 14, 2025
No. 10703627·Ninth Circuit · 2025·
FlawFinder last updated this page Apr. 2, 2026
Case Details
Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided
October 14, 2025
Citation
No. 10703627
Disposition
See opinion text.
Full Opinion
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 14 2025
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GERMAN MEDINA-ARAIZA, No. 25-1338
Agency No.
Petitioner, A076-693-432
v.
MEMORANDUM*
PAMELA BONDI, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 19, 2025**
Before: SILVERMAN, HURWITZ, and BADE, Circuit Judges.
German Medina-Araiza, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) order dismissing his appeal
from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for
cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review
*
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).
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 Medina-
Araiza has not shown exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to his 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 Medina-Araiza’s contention that the
BIA erred in affirming without opinion the IJ’s denial of his application for
cancellation of removal.
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.
The motion to stay removal is otherwise denied.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 25-1338
Plain English Summary
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 14 2025 MOLLY C.
Key Points
01NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 14 2025 MOLLY C.
02COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT GERMAN MEDINA-ARAIZA, No.
03On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted August 19, 2025** Before: SILVERMAN, HURWITZ, and BADE, Circuit Judges.
04German Medina-Araiza, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for cancellation of
Frequently Asked Questions
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 14 2025 MOLLY C.
FlawCheck shows no negative treatment for Medina-Araiza v. Bondi in the current circuit citation data.
This case was decided on October 14, 2025.
Use the citation No. 10703627 and verify it against the official reporter before filing.