Nguyen v. Holder, 743 F.3d 311

Background

Nguyen, a Vietnamese citizen, was admitted as a conditional permanent resident based on marriage to U.S. citizen Vu Truong in 2000; the joint petition to remove conditions was filed in 2002 and denied in 2007 after USCIS found the marriage incestuous.
USCIS concluded Nguyen was Truong’s half-niece (Nguyen’s maternal grandmother identified as Truong’s mother), rendering the marriage void and prompting removal proceedings.
At removal hearing, the IJ found the government’s documentary evidence credible and concluded the relationship was half-uncle/half-niece; the BIA affirmed those factual findings.
The BIA and IJ applied New York law to hold that marriage between a half-uncle and half-niece is void as incestuous; lower-court New York decisions (Audley and In re May’s Estate) had supported that view, but no clear Court of Appeals decision squarely resolved the statutory interpretation.
The Second Circuit found the factual findings supported by substantial evidence but determined New York’s Court of Appeals had not conclusively decided whether N.Y. Dom. Rel. Law § 5(3) (which omits “half blood” language) reaches half-blood uncle/niece relationships, and thus certified the question to the New York Court of Appeals.

Issues

Issue	Nguyen's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Whether the agency’s factual finding that Nguyen and Truong are half-niece and half-uncle is supported by substantial evidence	Nguyen argued testimonial evidence undermined the documentary record	Government relied on birth certificate and immigration records showing the shared grandmother/mother	The court held the agency’s factual finding is supported by substantial evidence and deferred to its credibility determinations
Whether N.Y. Dom. Rel. Law § 5(3) voids a marriage between an uncle and niece of the half blood	Nguyen argued § 5(3)’s omission of “half blood” means it does not reach half-blood relationships	Government and BIA relied on Appellate Division precedent treating half-blood uncle/niece marriages as void	The court declined to decide and certified the question to the New York Court of Appeals for authoritative interpretation
Whether certification to the New York Court of Appeals is appropriate	Nguyen presumably argued federal court could resolve the statutory question	Government favored treating New York precedent as controlling	The court held certification appropriate because the question is outcome-determinative, not squarely decided by the Court of Appeals, and implicates state policy judgments
Scope of judicial deference on mixed questions of law and fact in immigration proceedings	Nguyen sought reversal based on credibility and statutory interpretation	Government relied on agency factfinding and BIA’s statutory application	The court applied substantial-evidence review to facts and de novo review to New York law, affirming facts and certifying the legal question

Key Cases Cited

Zaman v. Mukasey, 514 F.3d 233 (2d Cir. 2008) (standard for reviewing IJ and BIA opinions)
Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510 (2d Cir. 2009) (definition of substantial-evidence review)
Lin Zhong v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 480 F.3d 104 (2d Cir. 2007) (deference to agency credibility determinations)
Siewe v. Gonzales, 480 F.3d 160 (2d Cir. 2007) (agency inferences must be tethered to the evidentiary record)
In re May’s Estate, 305 N.Y. 486 (1953) (App. Div. decision cited as supporting that half-uncle/niece marriages are void)
In re Simms’ Estate, 26 N.Y.2d 163 (1970) (Court of Appeals discussion casting doubt on reading § 5(3) to include half-blood relationships)