Birdsong v. Holder
641 F.3d 957
8th Cir.2011Background
- Birdsong, a Philippines citizen, entered on a K-1 visa and was required to marry within 90 days but did not marry the petitioning fiancé.
- Her I-130 was approved in 2004, she filed I-485, and removal proceedings commenced after denial of adjustment.
- She conceded removability and sought adjustment under § 1255(i) based on a good faith marriage to her current husband.
- IJ denied adjustment under § 1255(d) as barred for K-1 entrants; BIA affirmed; petition for review filed in the Eighth Circuit.
- Question presented: whether § 1255(d) bars adjustment for K-1 holders or § 1255(i) provides relief, and whether agency regulations are valid interpretations.
- Court analyzes statutory text, historical context, and agency regulations under Chevron deference to resolve the issue.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does § 1255(d) bar adjustment for K-1 entrants who did not marry the petitioner | Birdsong argues § 1255(i) provides relief despite § 1255(d). | Birdsong falls under § 1255(d) and is barred from adjustment except by marriage. | Section 1255(d) bars adjustment; § 1255(i) does not provide relief here. |
| Is § 1255(i) a viable path for a K-1 holder who did not marry the petitioning fiancé | § 1255(i) creates a freestanding basis to adjust status despite § 1255(d). | Regulations implementing § 1255(i) do not authorize relief for Birdsong's situation. | Regulations providing eligibility under § 1255(i) are not dispositive; they are permissible but in this case do not override § 1255(d). |
| Whether agency regulations interpreting § 1255(d) and § 1255(i) are entitled to Chevron deference | Regulations should be given deference and may permit § 1255(i) relief. | Regulations reasonably interpret the statute and support § 1255(d) bar. | 8 C.F.R. §§ 245.1(c)(6)(i) and 1245.1(c)(6)(i) are permissible constructions entitled to Chevron deference. |
| Is Birdsong due process claim for a merits hearing on discretionary adjustment, viable | She was denied a hearing on the merits. | No hearing was required because eligibility was conceded and issues were legal. | No due process violation; no further hearing needed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kalal v. Gonzales, 402 F.3d 948 (9th Cir. 2005) (statutory construction favored specific provisions over general ones in adjustment scheme)
- Markovski v. Gonzales, 486 F.3d 108 (4th Cir. 2007) (statutory interpretation of § 1255(d) and (i) in K-1 context)
- Foti v. INS, 375 U.S. 217 (S. Ct. 1963) (jurisdiction and deference principles in immigration rulings)
- INS v. Aguirre-Aguirre, 526 U.S. 415 (S. Ct. 1999) (judicial deference appropriate in immigration context)
- Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (U.S. 1984) (agency deference when statutory language is ambiguous)