9th Circuit, in Case Argued in Pasadena, Rules a Child Who Turns 21 During Appeals Can No Longer Support a Parent’s Cancellation of Removal

A 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel that heard the case at its Pasadena courthouse ruled Wednesday that a person who turns 21 while a parent’s appeal is pending before the Board of Immigration Appeals, or BIA, can no longer count as the “child” whose hardship supports the parent’s application for cancellation of removal.

The unanimous decision in Cruz Torres-Casas v. Todd Blanche means immigration authorities must assess whether an applicant has a qualifying relative when the agency issues its final decision, not only when an immigration judge first rules. The panel also upheld the agency’s conclusion that Torres-Casas had not shown the required level of hardship to his remaining qualifying relatives. Torres-Casas was represented by the Vejar Law Firm in San Dimas, in the San Gabriel Valley, and the three-judge panel heard arguments April 21 at the 9th Circuit’s Richard H. Chambers Courthouse in Pasadena.

Circuit Judge Michelle T. Friedland wrote the opinion, joined by Circuit Judge Eric D. Miller and U.S. District Judge Eric N. Vitaliano of the Eastern District of New York, who sat by designation. No judge wrote separately.

The ruling resolves a timing question left open by earlier precedent. Under federal law, some noncitizens can seek cancellation of removal, a discretionary form of relief that can adjust a successful applicant to lawful permanent resident status. The applicant must show that removal would cause “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” to a spouse, parent or child who is a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident. Federal law defines a child as an unmarried person under 21.

Friedland wrote that the statutory phrase “would result” calls for a prediction about future hardship. Because Congress did not tie that prediction to an earlier date, the panel reasoned, the adjudicator should use the most current information available when the agency issues its final decision. If an administrative appeal is filed, the Board of Immigration Appeals is the final adjudicator.

“Accordingly, a child who turns 21 during the pendency of his parent’s appeal to the BIA can no longer support his parent’s eligibility for cancellation of removal,” Friedland wrote.

The panel also pointed to statutory context, noting that Congress expressly fixed a child’s age as of a specified filing date in the Child Status Protection Act for certain family-based visas but included no comparable age-locking provision for cancellation of removal.

Torres-Casas argued that letting a child age out because the board took years to decide an appeal was arbitrary and could reward agency delay. The panel called the harshness a serious concern but said it could not read in age-protection language that Congress left out.

“It is true that those applicants’ eligibility will be destroyed by the passage of time, through no fault of their own. That arbitrariness is a serious concern, but interpreting the statute to avoid that result would require a departure from the text,” Friedland wrote.

The panel noted the present-tense rule can also help applicants — for example, when a child is born, or a spouse or parent gains qualifying status, while proceedings are still pending.

On hardship, the panel applied deferential substantial-evidence review and concluded the record did not compel a finding contrary to the agency’s conclusions about the family’s finances, ability to stay in contact, employment and the medical care available to Torres-Casas’s mother.

The federal government prevailed. The panel upheld the Board of Immigration Appeals’ denial of cancellation of removal, denied Torres-Casas’s petition for review and left the agency’s removal order in place.

Reaction from the parties was pending as of publication.

Torres-Casas has 45 days to seek panel rehearing, rehearing before a larger en banc panel, or both, unless the court shortens or extends that period. He may also ask the U.S. Supreme Court to take the case, which ordinarily allows 90 days from the entry of judgment. If no rehearing petition is filed and no extension applies, the standard 90-day period ends Oct. 20, 2026.