Case Explained: GERARDO GUZMAN-GUTIERREZ V. TODD BLANCHE

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Filed: 2026-06-18 The Ninth Circuit denied Gerardo Guzman-Gutierrez’s petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b). The court applied a de novo standard to legal questions and due process challenges, while reviewing the BIA’s application of the “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” standard for substantial evidence. The court held that the petitioner failed to establish prejudice from the immigration judge’s refusal to allow his ten-year-old son to testify, noting that other witnesses had already provided testimony on the same subjects regarding the son’s health and relationship with the father, and the record indicated no reasonable possibility that the excluded testimony would have altered the outcome. Furthermore, the court found the petitioner did not meet the demanding statutory standard for cancellation of removal because the hardship faced by his qualifying relatives—specifically his son and parents—was not “out of the ordinary” or “exceedingly uncommon,” as the son lacked serious health issues and the parents were not solely dependent on him for support. The court also determined that any potential factual error by the BIA regarding the petitioner’s future immigration options was harmless, as it did not change the result given the overwhelming focus on the lack of exceptional hardship. Consequently, the petition is denied, leaving the removal order in effect. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.