RODERICO FILADELFO PEREZ-PEREZ v. PAMELA BONDI, Attorney General - Articles

All Content

RODERICO FILADELFO PEREZ-PEREZ v. PAMELA BONDI, Attorney General

Posted by: Azya Thornton on Nov 21, 2025

Court: 6th Circuit Court (Published Opinions)

Attorneys 1: ARGUED: Shanta Driver, DRIVER, SCHON & ASSOCIATES PLC, Detroit, Michigan, for Petitioner.

Attorneys 2: ARGUED: Christina R. Zeidan, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Attorneys 3: ON BRIEF: Shanta Driver, DRIVER, SCHON & ASSOCIATES PLC, Detroit, Michigan, for Petitioner.

Attorneys 4: ON BRIEF: Christina R. Zeidan, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Judge(s): GIBBONS, McKEAGUE, and RITZ, Circuit Judges

Court Appealed: On Petition for Review from the Board of Immigration Appeals

JULIA SMITH GIBBONS, Circuit Judge. The Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) allows the Attorney General to cancel the deportation of an otherwise deportable noncitizen if that noncitizen establishes four preconditions to relief. Singh v. Rosen, 984 F.3d 1142, 1147 (6th Cir. 2021); see also 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1). The four preconditions to relief are met if the noncitizen demonstrates: (1) continuous physical presence for a minimum of 10 years prior to the cancellation application; (2) he has been a person of “good moral character” during that period; (3) he has no convictions of a disqualifying offense; and (4) he has established that “removal would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to the [noncitizen’s] spouse, parent, or child” who is a U.S. citizen or lawfully admitted permanent resident. 8 U.S.C. §§ 1229b(b)(1)(A)-(D). The INA defines “child” as “an unmarried person under twenty-one years of age[.]” Id. § 1101(b)(1). An immigration judge (“IJ”) granted Petitioner Roderico Filadelfo Perez-Perez cancellation of removal under § 1229b(b)(1)(D) in 2020, when his youngest daughter and qualifying “child,” Ady Perez-Velasquez, was seventeen years old. The government appealed, but the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) did not resolve the case until 2025, at which point it determined that Ady was over twenty-one and therefore no longer a qualifying “child” under the INA. As a result, the BIA vacated Perez-Perez’s cancellation of removal and ordered him removed to Guatemala. Because we now hold that the correct time to ascertain the age of a qualifying “child” under § 1229b(b)(1)(D) on an application for cancellation of removal is when the IJ issues its decision, we grant Perez-Perez’s petition for review and reverse the decision of the BIA.

Attachments: