OTIENDE, 26 I. & N. Dec. 127

Dunn, a U.S. citizen, filed a visa petition on behalf of his stepson, the beneficiary, for immediate relative status under INA §201(b)(2)(A)(i).
The beneficiary’s mother married Dunn on October 27, 2006; the beneficiary is a child of that marriage’s participation in a stepparent relationship.
In June 2007, Dunn filed petitions for the mother as his wife and for the beneficiary as his stepson; the mother had a prior marriage denied under §204(c).
The Director denied Dunn’s petition on behalf of the beneficiary, reasoning the stepparent relationship was invalid due to the prior §204(c) denial.
The Board of Immigration Appeals sustained the appeal and remanded for merits-based consideration of the beneficiary’s petition on its own.
The court held §204(c) does not bar the beneficiary’s petition and remanded for a merits determination of eligibility as a stepchild, including valid marriage bona fides.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether §204(c) bars the stepchild petition.	Dunn argues §204(c) does not apply to the beneficiary as a child, separate from the mother.	Director contends the prior §204(c) denial affects the stepparent relationship and validity.	§204(c) does not apply to the beneficiary; remand for merits.
Whether the stepchild relationship and marriage validity were properly considered.	Dunn asserts the marriage validity must be examined for the stepchild status.	Director did not address the bona fides of the marriage in the merits analysis.	Merits must be considered; remand for validity and eligibility determination.
Whether remand is appropriate to adjudicate the petition on its merits.	Remand is proper to evaluate eligibility beyond §204(c).	Merits assessment is necessary to determine stepchild status.	Remand proper; petition to be decided on its merits.

Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 467 U.S. 837 (U.S. Supreme Court 1984) (deference to agency interpretations of statutes implied)
INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421 (U.S. Supreme Court 1987) (plain meaning and congressional intent govern immigration statutes)