The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has denied Cruz Torres-Casas's petition for review regarding his immigration status. The court ruled that Torres-Casas's son, who turned 21 during the appeal process, was no longer considered a qualifying relative under U.S. immigration law. This decision impacts Torres-Casas's ability to claim hardship for cancellation of removal, which is crucial for his immigration case.
The ruling, filed on July 22, 2026, stems from a case where Torres-Casas, a native of Mexico, sought to avoid deportation by applying for cancellation of removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). The court's decision is significant as it clarifies how the age of qualifying relatives is assessed during immigration proceedings.
Background
Cruz Torres-Casas is a Mexican citizen who entered the United States without authorization. After the government initiated removal proceedings against him, he conceded his removability but applied for cancellation of removal, arguing that his deportation would cause exceptional hardship to his U.S.-citizen children and lawful permanent resident parents.
During the initial proceedings, an immigration judge (IJ) denied his application, stating that Torres-Casas had not demonstrated the required level of hardship. At that time, his son was 20 years old, just under the age limit set by the INA. However, while his appeal was pending, his son turned 21, which led to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) ruling that his son could no longer be considered a qualifying relative.
The Ruling
The Ninth Circuit upheld the BIA's decision, stating that the text of the INA requires an assessment of qualifying relatives on a continuing basis. The ruling emphasized that if a child turns 21 during the appeal process, they can no longer support their parent's eligibility for cancellation of removal. The court stated, "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."
The judges involved in the ruling included Michelle T. Friedland and Eric D. Miller, with Eric N. Vitaliano serving as a district judge sitting by designation. The court found that substantial evidence supported the BIA's determination that Torres-Casas failed to establish that his removal would cause exceptional hardship to his remaining qualifying relatives.
Impact
This ruling has significant implications for many noncitizens seeking cancellation of removal based on family hardship. It clarifies that the age of qualifying relatives is not fixed at the time of the IJ's decision but is subject to change during the appeal process. This means that individuals who may have been eligible for relief could lose that eligibility if their qualifying relatives age out during the proceedings.
The decision also reinforces the importance of demonstrating exceptional hardship, which must be significantly beyond what is typically expected in removal cases. As the court noted, the agency's conclusion that Torres-Casas's family would not suffer exceptional hardship was supported by evidence, including the ability of his family members to maintain employment and visit him in Mexico.
What's Next
Torres-Casas's case cannot be appealed further within the Ninth Circuit. However, it is possible that he may seek other forms of relief or challenge the decision through different legal avenues. There are no related cases pending that would directly affect this ruling.