The Ninth Circuit has denied a petition for review filed by a Mexican father seeking cancellation of removal, holding that his son, who was 20 years old when the immigration judge denied relief but turned 21 while the case was on appeal to the BIA, could no longer be considered a qualifying relative for purposes of the hardship analysis.
The Court held that the cancellation of removal statute requires the agency to assess qualifying relatives on a continuing basis up through whichever body issues the final decision, since the statute asks whether removal "would result" in hardship and thus calls for a prediction based on the most current information available. Because the statute contains no aging-out protection comparable to the one Congress created elsewhere in the INA, the Court held the BIA correctly declined to consider hardship to the petitioner's son and, applying substantial evidence review, upheld the agency's finding that hardship to the petitioner's remaining qualifying relatives did not rise to the exceptional and extremely unusual level required.
The full text of Torres-Casas v. Blanche can be found here: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2026/07/22/25-172.pdf