Roderico Filadelfo Perez-Perez v. Pamela Bondi -Board of Immigration Appeals

Circuit 6Nov 21, 2025

Split Score

SplitScore: 69/100

Case Summary

Disposition

Reversed

The Sixth Circuit granted Roderico Filadelfo Perez-Perez’s petition for review and reversed the BIA’s decision, holding that the relevant moment for determining whether a non-citizen’s relative is a qualifying “child” under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(D) is the date the Immigration Judge (IJ) issues the cancellation-of-removal decision, not the date the BIA rules on appeal. Because Perez-Perez’s daughter was under 21 when the IJ ruled, the court found he remained eligible for cancellation and the BIA erred in revoking relief.

View Full Opinion Document (PDF)

Circuit Split Identified

Legal Issue

At what point in the cancellation-of-removal process must a qualifying relative be a “child” (under 21) for purposes of 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(D)?

Circuit Positions

Circuit 6(this circuit)Circuit 10

Age of qualifying child is measured as of the Immigration Judge’s decision on the cancellation application.

Circuit 2Circuit 9Circuit 11

Age of qualifying child must be under 21 until the BIA’s final administrative decision (or removal); a child who ages-out during the appeal defeats eligibility.

Conflict Summary

Some circuits hold that a child’s age is fixed at the time the Immigration Judge rules on the cancellation application, while others require the child to remain under 21 until the BIA issues a final administrative decision (or until actual removal).

Parties & Counsel

Parties

Appellant:Roderico Filadelfo Perez-Perez
Appellee:Pamela Bondi, Attorney General

Legal Counsel

Appellant:Shanta Driver, Driver, Schon & Associates PLC
Appellee:Christina R. Zeidan, United States Department of Justice