Khoshfahm v. Holder
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 17749
| 9th Cir. | 2011Background
- Khoshfahm seeks review of BIA’s dismissal of his asylum, withholding, and LPR abandonment claims after living in Iran with his parents for about six years.
- The BIA affirmed the IJ’s finding that Khoshfahm abandoned his LPR status based on his unemancipated status and his parents’ actions.
- The BIA and IJ treated the abandonment as imputable to Khoshfahm via his parents’ intent to return to the U.S.
- Khoshfahmah turned 18 during the period abroad, at which point his own intent controls.
- Khoshfahm credibly testified he always wanted to return and obtained a permanent passport at 18, seeking readmission soon after.
- The Ninth Circuit granted the petition, holding that substantial evidence did not show the parents abandoned during the relevant period and that Khoshfahm’s own actions after turning 18 negated abandonment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abandonment of LPR status standard | Khoshfahm argues no clear evidence of abandonment. | Government claims clear, unequivocal evidence of abandonment. | Partially granted; record failed to show parental abandonment during the relevant period. |
| Imputation of abandonment from parents to child | Imputation is warranted only with clear evidence. | BIA may impute parental abandonment to unemancipated child. | Imputation allowed under precedent; issue not resolved here due to timing concerns. |
| Timing of abandonment (before vs after age 18) | Parents did not abandon before Khoshfahm turned 18. | Abandonment could be imputable if proven to occur during unemancipated period. | Record fails to establish when abandonment occurred; government failed to prove imputation. |
| Khoshfahm’s own conduct after turning 18 | Khoshfahm acted to return to the U.S. after 18. | Abandonment could be inferred from parental actions irrespective of his own conduct. | Khoshfahm’s actions after 18 show intent to return; this supports no abandonment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Singh v. Reno, 113 F.3d 1512 (9th Cir. 1997) (government burden to show not eligible for admission; clear, unequivocal evidence)
- Mercado-Zazueta v. Holder, 580 F.3d 1102 (9th Cir. 2009) (deference to BIA interpretations of INA terms; imputation contexts)
- Saucedo-Arevalo v. Holder, 636 F.3d 532 (9th Cir. 2011) (imputation of parent's status to unemancipated child)
- Cuevas-Gaspar v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 1013 (9th Cir. 2005) (imputation of parent's status/intent to child in immigration context)