Petitioner seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ affirmance of the immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his application for cancellation of removal. The IJ pretermitted petitioner’s application, concluding that he lacked any qualifying relatives for purposes of cancellation of removal. We agree that petitioner’s niece does not meet the statutory definition of “child” set forth in 8 U.S.C. § 1101(b)(1) and therefore cannot be considered a qualifying relative for purposes of cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(l)(D). See Moreno-Morante v. Gonzales, 490 F.3d 1172, 1176-77 (9th Cir.2007) (<HOLDING>). Petitioner’s constitutional challenge to the
holding that the clear and convincing standard must apply in terminating the parentchild relationship after the children have been adjudicated dependent or neglected holding that consortium is not a part of the parentchild relationship holding that attorneys fees and costs may not be awarded as child support when they are incurred in a suit to modify the parentchild relationship that does not involve the enforcement of a child support obligation holding that de facto parentchild relationship does not support a finding of qualifyingrelative status holding that destruction of the parentchild relationship includes grief and mental anguish