On October 29, 2024, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta, Georgia (covering cases from Georgia, Florida and Alabama) decided Diaz-Arellano v. U.S. Attorney General, No. 22-12446 (11th Cir. 2024).
The docket report for the case ‘Hector Diaz-Arellano v. U.S. Attorney General’ is available through the PACER system for up-to-date case details.
Ruling
The Court held that the father did not request to expedite his Cancellation of Removal before his daughter turned 21.
So his daughter turned 21 before the father’s final removal hearing, and because the daughter was no longer a “child” and therefore no longer a qualifying relative under the statute, the father was not eligible for Cancellation of Removal, since he could not demonstrate hardship to a qualifying relative if he were deported.
Lesson
Applicants for Cancellation of Relief in immigration court, where minor children are the qualifying relatives, should file a detailed Motion to Expedite with the court WELL BEFORE the child turns 21, in order to alert the court of the urgent need to hold the hearing BEFORE the child turns 21.
Background
- Individual: Hector Diaz-Arellano, a Mexican national, entered the US without legal status in 1989.
- Legal Issue: In 2017, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) filed charges for his removal. He admitted he was removable but Diaz-Arellano applied for “cancellation of removal” because his deportation would cause extreme hardship to his daughter, a US citizen under 21.
Key Points and Legal Context
Cancellation of Removal:
- Cancellation of removal is a type of relief from deportation for non-citizens.
- Eligibility often requires that the removal of the individual would cause “extreme and unusual hardship” to a US-citizen relative who qualifies under specific criteria (e.g. a child under 21).
Age Limitation for Qualifying Relative:
- Under immigration law, the qualifying child must be under 21 at the time of the final decision.
- This is key because an applicant cannot claim hardship based on a qualifying child who has turned 21.
Impact of Daughter’s 21st Birthday
The Eleventh Circuit’s decision in Diaz-Arellano v. U.S. Attorney General, No. 22-12446 (11th Cir. 2024), underscores the significant impact a qualifying relative’s 21st birthday can have on a petitioner’s eligibility for cancellation of removal.
In this case, Hector Diaz-Arellano’s daughter turned 21 before the final decision, which meant she no longer qualified as a “child” under the statute. The court held that the statute clearly requires a qualifying relative to be under 21 at the time of the final decision on cancellation of removal.
This ruling highlights the critical importance of timely filing and diligent pursuit of immigration proceedings. Petitioners, like Hector Diaz-Arellano, must be acutely aware of the deadlines and age requirements that can affect their eligibility for relief.
The court’s decision serves as a stark reminder that the immigration process is both complex and time-sensitive. Petitioners must be proactive in seeking legal counsel and ensuring their cases are pursued in a timely manner to avoid missing crucial deadlines.
Procedural Timeline and Issues
Initial Warnings:
- The Immigration Judge (IJ) told Diaz-Arellano his daughter’s 21st birthday would impact his relief. But he didn’t request to expedite his case.
Application and Hearing:
- He applied but didn’t object to the final hearing date after his daughter’s 21st birthday.
- By the time of his final hearing, his daughter was no longer a “qualifying child” under the law and the IJ denied his application.
Hardship to the Qualifying Relative
The concept of “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” to a qualifying relative is a cornerstone of cancellation of removal cases. In Diaz-Arellano v. U.S. Attorney General, No. 22-12446 (11th Cir. 2024), Hector Diaz-Arellano argued that his removal would cause such hardship to his U.S.-citizen daughter.
However, the court found that once his daughter turned 21, she no longer met the criteria of a qualifying child, rendering the hardship argument moot.
This decision underscores the necessity of demonstrating a clear and compelling hardship to a qualifying relative. Petitioners must provide substantial evidence to support their claims of hardship, and the court will meticulously evaluate the specific circumstances of each case.
In this instance, for example, the court’s ruling highlights the critical role of the qualifying relative’s age and the petitioner’s timely pursuit of relief in determining the outcome of a cancellation of removal case.
BIA Decision
Matter of Isidro-Zamorano:
- The BIA affirmed the IJ’s denial of Diaz-Arellano’s application. They cited Matter of Isidro-Zamorano which holds that the child must be under 21 at the time of the final decision for the parent to be eligible.
Diaz-Arellano’s Argument:
- Diaz-Arellano argued his daughter’s age should be considered at the time of application not the final decision.
- He also claimed delays in his case were unfair to him.
Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals Decision
Court’s Interpretation of the Statute:
- The court held the statute was clear, the qualifying relative must be under 21 at the time of the final decision.
- The court agreed with the BIA and denied Diaz-Arellano’s arguments.
Procedural Fairness:
- The court found no undue or unjustified delay to warrant an exception.
- So Diaz-Arellano’s petition for review was denied and he’s not eligible for cancellation of removal since his daughter was over 21 at the time of final decision.
What to Take Away
Age Limit Strictly Enforced:
- This case shows how strict the age limits are in immigration law.
- Delays or not, the age requirement is measured at the final decision not at the time of application.
For Future Applicants:
- Applicants for cancellation of removal should be aware that delays can impact eligibility if the qualifying relative is close to aging out.
- Timeliness in filing and if possible, expediting the hearing is key to being eligible based on qualifying children under 21.
For more information, read the Decision and listen to the attorneys’ Oral Argument.
Expert Legal Help At Herman Legal Group, LLC
24/7 Support, Just A Call Away!
