MORALES

Cite as 25 I&N Dec. 186 (BIA 2010) 	Interim Decision #3671
186
Matter of Ernesto Javier MORALES, Respondent
File A075 533 095 - Los Angeles, California
Decided January 27, 2010
U.S. Department of Justice
Executive Office for Immigration Review
Board of Immigration Appeals
A stepparent who qualifies as a “parent” under section 101(b)(2) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(b)(2) (2006), at the time of the proceedings is a qualifying
relative for purposes of establishing exceptional and extremely unusual hardship for
cancellation of removal under section 240A(b)(1)(D) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(D)
(2006).
FOR RESPONDENT: Alejandro Garcia, Esquire, Commerce, California
BEFORE: Board Panel: COLE, PAULEY, and GREER, Board Members.
PAULEY, Board Member:
In a decision dated July 14, 2008, an Immigration Judge found the
respondent removable, denied his application for cancellation of removal
under section 240A(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C.
§ 1229b(b) (2006), and granted his request for voluntary departure. 	The
respondent has appealed from the Immigration Judge’s denial of cancellation
of removal. 	The appeal will be sustained and the record will be remanded
to the Immigration Judge.
On appeal, the respondent argues that the Immigration Judge erred in not
considering his stepfather as a qualifying relative in evaluating the hardship
that would result from his removal from the United States. 	With regard
to hardship, the Immigration Judge stated that the only qualifying relative
in this case is the respondent’s lawful permanent resident mother. 	The
Immigration Judge noted that the respondent has a United States citizen
stepfather who has been married to his mother for “20 plus” years, but he did
not consider the respondent’s stepfather as a qualifying relative.
We first look to the relevant definitions of a “parent” and “child”
in sections 101(b)(1) and (2) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(b)(1) and (2) (2006).
Under section 101(b)(2), the term “parent” means a parent “only where the
relationship exists by reason of any of the circumstances” set forth in section
101(b)(1). Section 101(b)(1) of the Act defines a “child” as “an unmarried
person under twenty-one years of age.” This definition includes a stepchild,

Cite as 25 I&N Dec. 186 (BIA 2010) 	Interim Decision #3671
187
“provided the child had not reached the age of eighteen years at the time the
marriage creating the status of stepchild occurred.” 	Section 101(b)(1)(B)
of the Act.
In the context of adjudicating visa petitions, we have long held that
once the required steprelationship has been established, a stepparent remains
a parent, even if the “child” has married or is over 21 years of age, provided
the 	marriage 	creating 	the 	steprelationship 	continues 	to 	exist. 	See
Matter of Mourillon, 18 I&N Dec. 122, 125-26 (BIA 1981) (noting that
a steprelationship may be terminated by the death, divorce, or legal separation
of the parties whose marriage created the steprelationship); Matter of Citino,
12 I&N Dec. 427, 428 (BIA 1967) (stating that where a valid steprelationship
has been created, a stepparent remains a stepparent despite the marriage
of the “child”); see also Matter of Mowrer, 17 I&N Dec. 613, 615 (BIA 1981);
Matter of C-, 8 I&N Dec. 592, 593-94 (BIA 1960). 	Furthermore, we have
followed this reasoning for purposes of determining hardship to family
members 	in 	the 	context 	of 	considering 	eligibility 	for 	discretionary
relief. 	See Matter of G-, 8 I&N Dec. 355, 359 (BIA 1959); cf. Matter
of Portillo-Gutierrez, 25 I&N Dec. 148 (BIA 2009) (holding that a stepchild
who meets the definition of a “child” under section 101(b)(1)(B) of the Act at
the time of the proceedings is a qualifying relative for purposes of establishing
exceptional and extremely unusual hardship for cancellation of removal under
section 240A(b)(1)(D)). 	Therefore, in accord with our prior precedents,
we conclude that a stepfather who qualifies as a “parent” under section
101(b)(2) of the Act at the time of the proceedings is a qualifying relative for
purposes of establishing exceptional and extremely unusual hardship for
cancellation of removal under section 240A(b)(1)(D) of the Act.
At the time of the respondent’s hearing on July 14, 2008, his stepfather had
been married to his mother for over 20 years. 	The respondent was born
on November 7, 1972. 	Therefore, under the facts as determined by the
Immigration Judge, the respondent would have been, at most, 15 years old
when 	his 	stepfather 	became 	his 	parent. 	Consequently, 	the 	required
steprelationship was validly created pursuant to law because it was established
prior to the time the respondent reached the age of 18 years. 	Accordingly,
the 	respondent’s 	stepfather 	should 	have 	been 	given 	full 	consideration
as a qualifying relative in evaluating the hardship in this case. We therefore
find 	it 	appropriate 	to 	remand 	the 	record 	for 	the 	Immigration 	Judge
to reevaluate his findings concerning the hardship required for cancellation
of the respondent’s removal under section 240A(b)(1)(D) of the Act.
ORDER: The appeal is sustained.
FURTHER ORDER: The record is remanded to the Immigration Judge
for further proceedings consistent with the foregoing opinion and for the entry
of a new decision.