Rodolfo Espinoza-Solórzano v. U.S. Attorney General
20-14297
| 11th Cir. | Nov 2, 2021Background:
- Rodolfo Espinoza-Solorzano, a Mexican national removable after a criminal conviction, applied for cancellation of removal in 2011.
- At filing his daughter (a U.S. citizen) was 15 and intellectually disabled; Espinoza-Solorzano was her primary caregiver.
- The cancellation application remained pending and was adjudicated by an IJ in 2018, by which time the daughter was 22.
- The IJ denied relief because no qualifying relative existed at adjudication; the BIA affirmed, relying on a precedential BIA rule measuring "child" status at adjudication.
- Espinoza-Solorzano argued the relevant age is at filing and alternatively urged an exception based on his daughter’s diminished mental capacity.
- The Eleventh Circuit applied Chevron deference to the BIA’s interpretation and denied the petition, holding chronological age at adjudication controls and no mental-age exception exists in the INA.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a qualifying relative's age is measured at time of application or at time of adjudication | Daughter was under 21 at filing, so she qualifies | BIA: age is measured at adjudication; applicant must have qualifying relative when relief is decided | BIA’s interpretation reasonable under Chevron; age measured at adjudication |
| Whether a mentally disabled adult child can be treated as a "child" despite chronological age | Daughter’s diminished mental capacity and dependence should permit an exception | INA defines "child" by chronological age only; no statutory support for "mental age" exception | Court: statutory text requires chronological age; no exception available |
Key Cases Cited
- Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984) (framework for deference to agency statutory interpretations)
- INS v. Aguirre-Aguirre, 526 U.S. 415 (1999) (Chevron principles apply to BIA interpretations)
- Dolan v. U.S. Postal Serv., 546 U.S. 481 (2006) (use statutory context and purpose in interpretation)
- Quinchia v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 552 F.3d 1255 (11th Cir. 2008) (review scope of BIA decisions)
- Jaggernauth v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 432 F.3d 1346 (11th Cir. 2005) (deference to BIA when interpretation reasonable)
- Jeune v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 810 F.3d 792 (11th Cir. 2016) (standards for de novo review of jurisdictional issues)
- Thamotar v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 1 F.4th 958 (11th Cir. 2021) (reviewing BIA decision rather than IJ when BIA adopts IJ rationale)
- Hylton v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 992 F.3d 1154 (11th Cir. 2021) (statutory-construction principles in immigration context)