995 F. Supp. 2d 316
S.D.N.Y.2014Background
- Samuel Edwards (b. 1991, UK) was placed with his aunt and uncle, Sally and Paul Cantwell; UK authorities gave the Cantwells parental responsibility in 1996 and Samuel lived with them continuously.
- The Cantwells began UK adoption proceedings before Samuel turned 16, but the UK court could not complete a home assessment in the U.S. and did not finalize the adoption.
- The Cantwells filed for adoption in New York Family Court in May 2007; the court issued a nunc pro tunc adoption order in April 2008, effective July 11, 2007 (one day before Samuel turned 16).
- After Sally became a U.S. citizen, she filed an I-130 for Samuel in July 2010; USCIS denied the petition on the ground the adoption order was entered after Samuel’s 16th birthday and thus did not satisfy "adopted while under the age of sixteen" under INA § 1101(b)(1)(E).
- The BIA affirmed, relying on Matter of Cariaga; the district court reviewed the BIA decision and found no dispute of fact and that the BIA acted arbitrarily and capriciously by refusing to recognize the nunc pro tunc order.
- The district court reversed the BIA, concluding the BIA’s literal reading was not entitled to Chevron deference, that nunc pro tunc orders may be recognized to effectuate Congress’ intent to keep bona fide families together, and remanded for reconsideration consistent with the opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a state court nunc pro tunc adoption that is made effective before age 16 satisfies INA’s "adopted while under 16" requirement | The nunc pro tunc order validly establishes adoption date before 16 and must be recognized; no fraud present | BIA/USCIS: the adoption was "entered" after age 16 so it does not satisfy the statute (relying on Matter of Cariaga) | Court: nunc pro tunc order must be given effect where nonfraudulent; BIA’s refusal arbitrary and capricious |
| Whether BIA’s precedent in Matter of Cariaga is entitled to Chevron deference | N/A (argues statutory meaning supports recognition) | Government: BIA interpretation controls and deserves Chevron deference | Court: BIA’s Cariaga decision not entitled to Chevron deference here because it ignored key statutory purposes and failed reasoned analysis |
| Whether the BIA’s refusal violated Full Faith and Credit principles and Congressional intent to keep families together | Full Faith and Credit and INA’s family-unity purpose require recognition of valid state adoption determinations | Agency prioritizes anti-fraud concern and treats timing of entry as dispositive | Court: BIA failed to consider Congress’ family-unity purpose and full faith and credit; its action was arbitrary and capricious |
| Remedy: Whether remand and reversal are required | Petitioners seek recognition and immigration relief; district court review | Government seeks affirmation of BIA denial | Court: Reversed BIA and remanded for reconsideration consistent with opinion |
Key Cases Cited
- Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 467 U.S. 837 (agency interpretations receive deference when statute ambiguous and agency’s interpretation reasonable)
- Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Ass'n v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 463 U.S. 29 (agency action is arbitrary and capricious if it fails to consider important aspects of the problem)
- Sook Young Hong v. Napolitano, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1270 (D. Haw. 2011) (refusing to defer to BIA on nunc pro tunc adoption where recognizing order furthers family-unity purpose)
- Gonzalez-Martinez v. U.S. Dept. of Homeland Security, 677 F. Supp. 2d 1233 (D. Utah 2009) (BIA’s disregard of nonfraudulent nunc pro tunc adoptions was arbitrary and capricious)