Camila Maria Silva-Hernandez v. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Miami Florida
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 23329
11th Cir.2012Background
- Silva-Hernandez, a Brazilian citizen, overstayed a B-2 visa after entering in 2001.
- She married Cuban national Eduardo Hernandez in 2010, who had been an LPR since 2000.
- She filed for adjustment of status under the Cuban Adjustment Act (CAA) on Oct. 5, 2010; approved Feb. 10, 2011.
- The Immigration Service recorded her LPR date as August 27, 2010 (date of marriage) under the adjudicator’s manual.
- She sued, challenging the rollback date for non-Cuban spouses and the agency’s practices as inconsistent with the CAA’s plain text.
- The district court granted summary judgment to the Service, finding ambiguity in the CAA; on appeal, the Eleventh Circuit reversed, holding the statute unambiguous and the Field Manual contrary to Congress’s intent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the CAA plainly requires a rollback date for non-Cuban spouses. | Silva-Hernandez contends rollback date must be 30 months before filing/arrival, not marriage date. | Hernandez argues rollback is limited by policy, yielding absurd results and not grounded in statute. | Yes, the CAA plainly requires rollback date 30 months prior to filing/arrival, not marriage date. |
| Whether the Adjudicator’s Field Manual §23.11(m)(2) is consistent with the CAA. | Manual aligns with statutory language and Congress’s intent. | Manual reflects an interpretation not grounded in statute, producing absurd results. | No; Field Manual contradicts the unambiguous statutory rollback provision and is reversed. |
Key Cases Cited
- CBS Inc. v. Primetime 24 Joint Venture, 245 F.3d 1217 (11th Cir. 2001) (court guards against reading plain meaning away by policy arguments)
- Harry v. Marchant, 291 F.3d 767 (11th Cir. 2002) (plain meaning governs statutory interpretation; start with text)
- Durr v. Shinseki, 638 F.3d 1342 (11th Cir. 2011) (de novo review of agency statutory interpretation)
- Serrano v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 655 F.3d 1260 (11th Cir. 2011) (statutory interpretation questions reviewed de novo)
- Gonzalez v. McNary, 980 F.2d 1418 (11th Cir. 1993) (family unity rationale for CAA’s spousal provision)