The Second Circuit Court of Appeals has clarified that, to qualify, the child must be under 21 years of age at the time a cancellation of removal application is decided, not at the time of filing or during subsequent proceedings. Timing, therefore, is critical to prevent separation and keep eligibility open for such families under strict age requirements.
Court Affirms Age Requirement in Cancellation-of-Removal Cases
In Yupangui-Yunga v. Bondi, the Second Circuit affirmed the denial of a motion to reopen a cancellation of removal application. The court explained for the first time that the “child” qualifying under 8 U.S.C. 1229b(b)(1)(D) must be under 21 years old at the time of adjudication, not at the time of filing or when presenting new evidence.
Julio Cesar Yupangui-Yunga, a father from Ecuador, argued that the unclear laws and delays in processing meant his eldest daughter’s age should be considered at the time he filed or during the merits hearing. The court dismissed this argument. It stated that such applications are ongoing, and eligibility is evaluated at the time of the decision. This decision reinforced the strict timing rules in the law.
Case Background and Timeline
Yupangui-Yunga submitted his application to cancel his removal in 2013. He claimed there was “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” for his three children, who are U.S. citizens. In 2018, an immigration judge turned down the application. The judge cited the father’s criminal history and a lack of evidence that his children’s hardship was significant.
The Board of Immigration Appeals upheld the decision, and no judicial review was pursued. In 2021, Yupangui-Yunga filed a motion to reopen, submitting new psychological evidence concerning his oldest daughter, who was then 19. As of February 10, 2023, the motion had been denied because she was over the age limit for qualifying relatives. The case shows how strict statutory timelines can have real-world impacts: even minor delays can shift a family’s legal prospects.
Legal Consequences of the Decision
The Second Circuit’s ruling makes clear that cancellation-of-removal eligibility cannot be applied retroactively. Hardship must be shown to a qualifying child at the time the case is adjudicated, and later changes in circumstances cannot preserve eligibility once the child turns 21.
This decision is consistent with prior decisions of the Tenth, Eleventh, and Ninth Circuits and fosters uniformity nationwide. Thus, the immigration agencies cannot grant any exemption based on delayed processing or evidence submitted later. It highlights the importance of good timing, proper documentation, and timely legal advice when families face complicated proceedings.
What Families Should Know
Timing is crucial. Filing before a child turns 21 is essential for keeping eligibility for cancellation of removal. Families should collect evidence of hardship with typical processing timelines in mind, ensuring their documentation meets the specific legal requirements.
At this stage, legal strategies must focus on possible delays and make eligibility the primary concern during the hearing. Even minor timing errors can lead to significant consequences. Therefore, early consultation with a licensed immigration attorney is vital to avoid family separation and meet deadlines.
Looking Ahead
Families throughout the country must work within strict timelines in immigration proceedings, and the Second Circuit’s ruling reinforces the legal realities of age-based eligibility. Understanding deadlines and eligibility requirements, and how delayed processing can impact potential eligibility, is more crucial than ever for maintaining family unity for parents and children.
For continued coverage and in-depth analysis of U.S. immigration policy and visa reforms, visit ImmigrationQuestion.com.
Get answers to your immigration questions from licensed immigration attorneys. For attorneys, use our innovative 3-in-1 case management software to improve your practice. Download our free app on Google Play and the Apple App Store.
Resources:
**ImmigrationQuestion.com is a networking platform founded by Immigration Attorneys. It serves as a meeting ground for licensed immigration attorneys and people with immigration questions. It is not a law firm. It is not affiliated with or endorsed by USCIS or AILA. Attorneys on this platform are independent and have the discretion to offer a free consultation and/or set their fees under the law.
