Sandoval v. Holder, 641 F.3d 982

Sandoval, a Mexican citizen, used a relative's documents to enter the U.S. and obtained a Minnesota ID; she secretly returned to Mexico and later re-entered; she did not truthfully retract a false citizenship claim at the airport when confronted in 1998; she later married a U.S. citizen and sought adjustment of status; §212(a)(6)(C)(ii) bars admission for false citizenship claims and is permanent with one narrow exception; the IJ granted relief based on unaccompanied-minor status, the Board reversed, and the case was remanded for clarification of the applicable standard; the court issues a remand to require the Board to articulate the standard and Sandoval’s eligibility under it; the majority remands for further Board proceedings to resolve the standard, while Sandoval argues for a bright-line minor exception.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether §212(a)(6)(C)(ii)(I) applies to unaccompanied minors.	Sandoval argues minors receive special treatment and should be exempt.	Government contends the statute's plain language applies to any alien, including minors.	Remanded for Board to articulate the standard applying the statute to unaccompanied minors.
Whether timely retraction analysis should be capacity-sensitive for unaccompanied minors.	Sandoval contends age/maturity should affect recantation timing.	Board did not address capacity-sensitive retraction; merits should be decided later.	Remand to allow the Board to decide whether retraction analysis should be capacity-sensitive.
Whether the Board’s lack of a clear standard requires remand to enable meaningful review.	Board failed to provide a coherent standard governing Sandoval’s case.	Agency interpretation should be given deference if reasonable.	Remand to articulate and apply a clear standard in light of agency experience.

Chenery Corp. v. sec, 332 U.S. 194 (1947) (judicial review requires a clear, intelligible agency rationale)
Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005) (juvenile era relevant to maturity and adjudication)
Padilla v. Kentucky, 130 S. Ct. 1473 (2010) (immigration and informing rights context about responsibility of counsel and due process)
Reves v. Ernst & Young, 494 U.S. 56 (1990) (limits of broad statutory interpretation for securities)
H Hughes v. Ashcroft, 255 F.3d 752 (9th Cir. 2001) (statutory interpretation and minor-related provisions)
Llapa-Sinchi v. Mukasey, 520 F.3d 897 (8th Cir. 2008) (service of deportation hearing notices on unaccompanied minors)
Negusie v. Holder, 555 U.S. 511 (2009) (remand guidance to agency in immigration review)
O Orlando Ventura, 537 U.S. 12 (2002) (immigration appellate review standards)