The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied Carlos Orta Martinez's petition for review of immigration orders, affirming decisions by the Board of Immigration Appeals that rejected his application for cancellation of removal and motion to reopen proceedings. The January 27, 2026 ruling addressed two consolidated cases challenging the denial of immigration relief for the Mexican citizen who argued his removal would cause exceptional hardship to his United States-citizen children.
The per curiam opinion, issued by a three-judge panel consisting of Circuit Judges Moore, Clay, and White, upheld the BIA's determination that Martinez had not established the required standard for cancellation of removal. Judge Moore filed a separate opinion dissenting in part, indicating disagreement among the judges regarding the application of immigration law standards.
Martinez, a Mexican citizen who last entered the United States in 2006, sought cancellation of removal based on the hardship his deportation would cause to his U.S. citizen children. Under immigration law, applicants for cancellation of removal must demonstrate that their removal would result in "exceptional and extremely unusual hardship" to qualifying relatives who are U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents.
The case involved two separate petition numbers, reflecting the complex procedural history common in immigration appeals. Martinez initially filed an application for cancellation of removal, which was denied by an Immigration Judge and subsequently affirmed by the BIA in case number 24-3703. He then filed a motion to reopen proceedings, arguing he had presented new, material evidence of hardship to his children, which the BIA also denied in case number 25-3161.
In his arguments before the Sixth Circuit, Martinez contended that the BIA erroneously determined he had not met the exceptional and extremely unusual hardship standard. The hardship standard in cancellation of removal cases requires showing that the qualifying relatives would suffer hardship that is substantially different from, or beyond, that which would normally be expected from the deportation of a close family member.
Martinez also challenged the BIA's denial of his motion to reopen, arguing that the agency abused its discretion by failing to consider new, material evidence regarding the hardship his children would face if he were removed from the United States. Motions to reopen immigration proceedings are generally disfavored and must meet strict requirements, including that the evidence could not have been discovered or presented at the earlier proceeding.
The court's decision to deny both petitions reflects the high burden placed on immigrants seeking cancellation of removal. The "exceptional and extremely unusual hardship" standard is notably more stringent than other hardship standards in immigration law, requiring evidence that goes well beyond the normal hardship associated with family separation.
Judge Moore's partial dissent suggests there may have been disagreement among the panel members regarding either the application of the hardship standard or the procedural aspects of the motion to reopen. However, the specific grounds for the dissent are not detailed in the available portions of the opinion.
The case highlights ongoing challenges in immigration law enforcement and the difficulty immigrants face in obtaining relief from removal proceedings. Cancellation of removal serves as one of the few avenues for undocumented immigrants to obtain lawful status, but the stringent requirements mean that many applications are ultimately unsuccessful.
The ruling comes as immigration policy continues to be a focal point of federal enforcement efforts. The involvement of Attorney General Pamela Bondi as the named respondent reflects the federal government's role in defending immigration enforcement decisions through the appeals process.
For Martinez, the denial of both petitions likely exhausts his administrative remedies, though potential options for further review may exist depending on the specific circumstances of his case. The decision also serves as precedent for future cases in the Sixth Circuit involving similar hardship determinations.
The Sixth Circuit's jurisdiction covers federal appeals from Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee, meaning this decision will influence how immigration cases are evaluated throughout the region. Immigration attorneys representing clients in cancellation of removal proceedings will likely study the court's analysis of the hardship standard for guidance in future cases.
The opinion's designation as "not recommended for publication" indicates that while it resolves Martinez's specific case, it may have limited precedential value for future proceedings. However, the partial dissent suggests the legal issues involved continue to generate disagreement among federal judges tasked with reviewing immigration decisions.