Matter of Morales, 25 I&N Dec. 186 (BIA 2010).

A stepparent who qualifies as a “parent” under INA Section 101(b)(2), 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 INA Section 240A(b)(1)(D), 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(D) (2006).

Under INA 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 INA 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, “provided the child had not reached the age of eighteen years at the time the marriage creating the status of stepchild occurred.” In the context of adjudicating visa petitions, the BIA has 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. Furthermore, the BIA has followed this reasoning for purposes of determining hardship to family members in the context of considering eligibility for discretionary relief. Therefore, in accord with the BIA’s prior precedents, this Board concludes 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.

Where at the time of the respondent’s hearing on July 14, 2008 his stepfather had been married to his mother for over 20 years, and where the respondent was born on November 7, 1972, 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. This Board therefore finds it appropriate to remand the record for the IJ to reevaluate his findings concerning the hardship required for cancellation of the respondent’s removal under section 240A(b)(1)(D) of the Act. Accordingly, the appeal is sustained.