Chavira Mendoza: The Judges Divided Over the Parent-Care Hardship Record

The majority found the agency had adequately considered cancellation hardship; Judge Paez thought important caregiving evidence had been overlooked. In Chavira Mendoza v. Bondi, No. 23-603 (9th Cir. Jan. 22, 2026), the court denied part of the petition and dismissed the continuance challenge as moot. The disagreement over care for an elderly parent explains the decision’s practical significance.

The memorandum is unpublished and nonprecedential except as Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 permits. The partial dissent is not the court’s holding.

The majority found the hardship analysis legally adequate

The applicant challenged the agency’s cancellation-of-removal decision, arguing that it focused on him rather than his qualifying relatives and failed to consider cumulative hardship. The majority found that his skills and assets were relevant insofar as they affected those relatives. It also found that the agency had considered the harms individually and together.

The majority applied substantial-evidence review to the hardship determination, citing Gonzalez-Juarez v. Bondi, 137 F.4th 996, 1003 (9th Cir. 2025). It concluded that the record did not compel the required exceptional and extremely unusual hardship finding. Chavira Mendoza, memorandum at 2–3.

The mother’s letter and substitute support divided the judges

The majority treated the mother’s letter as duplicative of testimony the immigration judge had recounted. It also found sufficient consideration of the siblings’ residence and status, with insufficient evidence that they would fail to support their mother. The majority additionally noted that these particular reasoned-consideration arguments had not been specifically developed by the applicant.

Judge Paez disagreed about the evidence’s significance. His opinion described a 68-year-old lawful permanent resident mother with COPD, dependent on her son for bills, groceries and medical appointments. Her letter was the only direct account in her own words; she attended the hearing but did not testify, in part because an interpreter was unavailable. He viewed that perspective as corroborating and strengthening the evidence rather than merely repeating it.

The dissent distinguished sending money from providing daily care

Judge Paez emphasized the lack of evidence that siblings hundreds of miles away could relocate or provide hands-on assistance. The nearby sibling’s lack of lawful status was also relevant to the realistic availability of substitute support. Judge Paez identified the risk of immigration enforcement, citing In re Gonzalez Recinas, 23 I&N Dec. 467, 472 (BIA 2002). He thought the agency had not given those circumstances reasoned consideration under Cole v. Holder, 659 F.3d 762, 772 (9th Cir. 2011), and related cases.

He would have remanded the cancellation issue for a new assessment. The majority instead upheld the agency’s consideration and result. A discussion of the caregiving evidence must keep those positions separate. Chavira Mendoza, Paez opinion, PDF pages 6–11.

The other challenges failed for different reasons

The asylum-abandonment challenge appeared in the issues-presented section but lacked supporting argument, so the court found it forfeited. The due process challenge to the unsigned or unedited oral decision failed because the applicant identified no potential prejudice, even assuming a technical error.

The U-visa continuance challenge became moot after USCIS denied that application during the federal appeal. The court could no longer grant effectual relief on the request for more time to pursue it. Those grounds produced the denied-in-part and dismissed-in-part disposition. Chavira Mendoza at 3–5.

Our practical guide focuses on documenting a qualifying parent’s actual care and realistic replacement support. It treats that as evidence preparation, not a promise that any diagnosis or caregiving arrangement establishes cancellation eligibility.