The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has denied a petition for review filed by Gamaliel Delgado, a Mexican national seeking to overturn an immigration court's denial of cancellation of removal proceedings. The decision, filed Feb. 2, 2026, in case number 25-60313, affirms lower court rulings that found Delgado did not meet the requirements for immigration relief.
Delgado, described in court documents as a native and citizen of Mexico, challenged a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals that upheld an immigration judge's denial of his request for cancellation of removal. The case was decided by a three-judge panel consisting of Circuit Judges Davis, Jones, and Ho in a brief per curiam opinion that was not designated for publication.
The case marks one of the first immigration appeals to be decided with Pamela Bondi named as respondent in her capacity as U.S. Attorney General. Bondi was recently confirmed to the position following her nomination by President Trump, replacing Merrick Garland in the role.
To qualify for cancellation of removal under federal immigration law, specifically 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1), an applicant must demonstrate several requirements, including that their removal from the United States would result in "exceptional and extremely unusual hardship" to a qualifying relative. This standard represents one of the most difficult thresholds to meet in immigration proceedings, requiring applicants to show hardship that goes well beyond the normal consequences of deportation.
The Fifth Circuit's review focused on the Board of Immigration Appeals' decision rather than conducting a fresh examination of the underlying facts. As the court noted in its opinion, "We review the BIA's decision and consider the IJ's decision only to the extent it influenced the BIA." This standard of review, established in precedent cases such as Sustaita-Cordova v. Garland (5th Cir. 2024), limits the appeals court's ability to substitute its judgment for that of immigration authorities.
The opinion provides limited details about Delgado's specific circumstances or the nature of the hardship he claimed would result from his removal. Immigration cases involving cancellation of removal typically involve individuals who have established significant ties to the United States, often including U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident family members who would suffer if the applicant were deported.
The "exceptional and extremely unusual hardship" standard has been interpreted narrowly by immigration courts and the Board of Immigration Appeals. Factors considered in such determinations typically include the health, age, and circumstances of qualifying relatives; the conditions in the country to which the applicant would be removed; the family ties and connections to the United States; and the length of residence in the country.
The Fifth Circuit's jurisdiction includes Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi, states that have seen significant immigration enforcement activity and litigation. The court has handled numerous immigration cases in recent years, often involving challenges to removal orders and requests for various forms of relief.
Delgado's case was assigned Agency No. A087 329 795 by immigration authorities, indicating it proceeded through the standard immigration court process before reaching the federal appeals level. The case was placed on the court's summary calendar, a designation typically used for cases that do not require oral argument and can be decided based on the written record.
The timing of the decision, early in 2026, suggests the case moved relatively quickly through the appeals process. Immigration appeals can often take months or years to resolve, depending on the complexity of the issues and the court's caseload.
The denial of Delgado's petition effectively exhausts his appeals within the federal court system regarding this particular claim for relief. However, immigration law provides various other potential avenues for relief, depending on an individual's circumstances, though the specifics of any such options in Delgado's case are not detailed in the available court documents.
The case reflects the ongoing challenges faced by immigrants seeking to remain in the United States through cancellation of removal proceedings. The high standard for proving exceptional and extremely unusual hardship means that many applicants are unsuccessful in their attempts to avoid deportation through this particular form of relief.
The decision also illustrates the continuity of immigration enforcement and appeals processes across changes in federal administration. While the case is styled against the new Attorney General, the underlying immigration proceedings and legal standards remain consistent with established precedent and statutory requirements.