Arobelidze v. Holder, 653 F.3d 513

Nino Arobelidze and her mother entered the U.S. on temporary visas in 1998 and sought permanent residence.
Mother violated visa terms by working after expiration, leading to denial of both mother’s and Nino’s adjustment applications.
Mother obtained a new temporary visa and reapplied; Nino’s age increased to 21 during the process, affecting derivative-beneficiary status.
DHS concluded Nino was no longer a derivative beneficiary for her second application, and removal proceedings began in 2006.
Nino argued the Child Status Protection Act (CSPA) froze her age as of her mother’s original petition; the Board disagreed relying on the statute’s effective date provision.
The Seventh Circuit granted the petition, vacated the Board’s decision, and remanded for further proceedings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Board properly interpreted the CSPA effective date	Arobelidze argues subsection (1) covers all beneficiaries of pre-enactment petitions with no final adjudication before enactment.	Holder contends the Board correctly limited coverage under subsection (1) by requiring a lack of final adjudication and that other subsections do not apply.	Ambiguity; court adopts Nino’s reading, applying CSPA to her.
Whether Nino exhausted administrative remedies on the effective date issue	Nino contends exhaustion satisfied because the Board addressed the issue on its own during reopening.	Government argues Nino failed to raise the issue before the Board and thus exhausted remedy rules bar review.	Exhaustion satisfied; Board’s new consideration on reopening allowed review.

INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421 (U.S. 1987) (longstanding principle of construing ambiguities in deportation statutes in alien’s favor)
Padash v. INS, 358 F.3d 1161 (9th Cir. 2004) (history of CSPA coverage and retroactivity concerns)
Mead Corp., 533 U.S. 218 (U.S. 2001) (Mead clarifies Chevron deference scope; agency proclamations not carrying force of law lack deference)