Adebowale Ojo v. Loretta Lynch
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 2614
| 4th Cir. | 2016Background
- Ojo, born in Nigeria in 1983, entered the U.S. in 1989 and was placed in his U.S.-citizen uncle’s legal custody at age 6.
- The uncle filed to adopt Ojo when Ojo was 16; the Maryland state court entered an adoption decree on January 24, 2001, after Ojo had turned 17.
- Ojo was later convicted of offenses qualifying as aggravated felonies; DHS charged him removable, asserting he never derived U.S. citizenship under 8 U.S.C. § 1431 because he was not "adopted while under the age of sixteen years."
- The IJ and then the BIA held the 2001 adoption decree controlled and rejected recognition of a later Maryland nunc pro tunc order (dated Oct. 29, 2014) that made the adoption effective Aug. 27, 1999 (the day before Ojo turned 16), relying on the BIA’s Cariaga/Drigo precedent.
- Ojo moved to reopen based on the state nunc pro tunc order and federal decisions criticizing the BIA’s blanket rule; the BIA denied reopening. The Fourth Circuit granted review.
- During the appeal the BIA modified its prior rule in Matter of Huang, but the Fourth Circuit held the statutory term "adopted" is unambiguous and requires recognition of facially valid state adoption effective dates; it vacated the BIA denial and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether "adopted while under the age of sixteen years" refers to the effective date of adoption (state court effective date) or to the date the act creating the adoption occurred | Ojo: "Adopted" plainly means the adoption is effective on the state-court effective date (so nunc pro tunc order making adoption effective before 16 satisfies the statute) | AG/DHS: BIA’s interpretation (Cariaga/Drigo) treats post-age nunc pro tunc decrees as ineffective for immigration purposes to prevent fraud; term ambiguous so BIA entitled to Chevron deference | Court: "Adopted" is unambiguous and refers to the adoption’s effective date under state law; BIA’s blanket disregard of facially valid nunc pro tunc orders is contrary to law |
| Whether the BIA abused its discretion by denying Ojo’s motion to reopen based on refusal to recognize the Maryland nunc pro tunc decree | Ojo: BIA wrongly ignored a facially valid state-court decree and federalism principles; no evidence of fraud | AG/DHS: BIA’s precedent justifies denying reopening; even under Huang, Ojo still would not qualify (alternative arguments were preserved) | Court: BIA abused its discretion by refusing to recognize the nunc pro tunc order; remanded for further proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 467 U.S. 837 (agency deference framework)
- Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl, 133 S. Ct. 2552 (2013) (adoption/domestic relations are traditionally state matters)
- Carachuri-Rosendo v. Holder, 560 U.S. 563 (look to state-court instruments to determine immigration consequences)
- Amponsah v. Holder, 709 F.3d 1318 (9th Cir. 2013) (rejected BIA’s blanket rule; required case-by-case review of nunc pro tunc decrees)
- Mylan Pharm., Inc. v. FDA, 454 F.3d 270 (4th Cir. 2006) (statutory construction and agency positions)
- Barnhart v. Sigmon Coal Co., 534 U.S. 438 (statutory text controls when clear)
- Nken v. Holder, 585 F.3d 818 (4th Cir. 2009) (standard for vacating agency action)