Cuellar De Osorio v. Mayorkas
656 F.3d 954
| 9th Cir. | 2011Background
- Family-sponsored immigration involves petitions by U.S. citizens/LPRs for relatives; petitions place derivatives in same status and priority date, creating age-out risks when delays occur.
- Children who age out (turn 21) during long processing may lose eligibility; CSPA provides relief to preserve benefits.
- Question presented: whether aged-out derivative beneficiaries of F3 (married sons/daughters of citizens) and F4 (siblings of citizens) petitions are entitled to automatic conversion to an adult category and/or retention of the original priority date under § 1153(h)(3).
- BIA in Matter of Wang limited automatic conversion and priority-date retention primarily to the F2A category; district court and CIS relied on that interpretation.
- Court applies Chevron two-step framework to § 1153(h); holds § 1153(h)(3) ambiguous as to F3/F4 derivatives and defers to BIA’s permissible interpretation.
- Holding: Appellants’ children are not entitled to automatic conversion or priority-date retention under § 1153(h)(3) for F3/F4 derivatives; district court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether F3/F4 aged-out derivatives qualify for automatic conversion or priority-date retention | Osorio/Costelo/Ong argue §1153(h)(3) grants both benefits automatically. | CIS/BIA argue automatic conversion limited to F2A; no automatic conversion/retention for F3/F4 derivatives. | Ambiguous; not automatically applied; BIA interpretation upheld. |
| Whether the BIA’s Matter of Wang interpretation is permissible under Chevron | Chevron deference should apply to the BIA’s interpretation. | BIA interpretation reasonable and consistent with statute; deference warranted. | Permissible; BIA interpretation sustained under Chevron. |
| Whether §1153(h)(3) unambiguously dictates automatic conversion and retention for F3/F4 derivatives | Clear entitlement to automatic conversion/retention. | Statute ambiguous pending Chevron step two. | Statute ambiguous; court defers to agency interpretation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ochoa-Amaya v. Gonzales, 479 F.3d 989 (9th Cir. 2007) (age calculations under §1153(h)(1) context for child status)
- Matter of Wang, 25 I. & N. Dec. 28 (BIA 2009) (limits automatic conversion and priority-date retention to F2A)
- Li v. Renaud, 654 F.3d 376 (2d Cir. 2011) (statutory interpretation outside of New York/immigration context)
- Miller v. United States, 363 F.3d 999 (9th Cir. 2004) (statutory interpretation—avoidance of surplus language)
- Or. Trollers Ass'n v. Gutierrez, 452 F.3d 1104 (9th Cir. 2006) (permissible agency construction under Chevron step two)
- Ramos-López v. Holder, 563 F.3d 855 (9th Cir. 2009) (Chevron framework applied to agency interpretations)
- INS v. Aguirre-Aguirre, 526 U.S. 415 (U.S. 1999) (Supreme Court Chevron framework origin)
- Valladolid v. Pac. Operations Offshore, LLP, 604 F.3d 1126 (9th Cir. 2010) (unreasonable or impracticable results may affect statutory interpretation)
- Daas v. United States, 198 F.3d 1167 (9th Cir. 1999) (use of legislative history in ambiguity resolution)
- United States v. Cabaccang, 332 F.3d 622 (9th Cir. 2003) (general approach to statutory interpretation in immigration context)
- Matter of Wang, 25 I. & N. Dec. 28 (BIA 2009) (see above)