Case Explained: UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT JONATHAN OTAVALO MUELA v. TODD BLANCHE, Acting U.S. Attorney General ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit Filed: 2026-06-26 The Sixth Circuit denied the petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) decision denying Jonathan Otavalo Muela’s application for cancellation of removal. The petitioner sought this form of relief to avoid deportation by demonstrating that his removal would cause “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” to his qualifying relative, a minor son, under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(D) and INA § 240A(b)(1)(D). The court held that the BIA’s decision was sufficient and legally sound. While the petitioner argued the BIA failed to explain how it weighed hardship factors in the aggregate, the Sixth Circuit ruled that the Board is not required to list every possible factor or write an “exegesis” on every contention. Under the standard established in *Scorteanu v. I.N.S.*, the Board need only consider the issues raised and announce a decision sufficient to show it has heard and thought about the matter. The court found the BIA satisfied this requirement by explicitly stating it considered all factors “in the aggregate” and explaining that the totality of the hardship did not rise to the level of “truly exceptional and compelling cases” where hardship is substantially beyond what would ordinarily be expected, citing *Matter of Monreal*. Additionally, the court noted that the petitioner’s claim regarding the sequential evaluation of factors was unpreserved because it was not raised in his appeal to the BIA. The practical consequence is that the petition for review is denied, and the BIA’s order denying cancellation of removal remains in effect, leaving the petitioner subject to removal proceedings. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.