Scialabba v. Cuellar De Osorio
134 S. Ct. 2191
| SCOTUS | 2014Background
- This case concerns the Child Status Protection Act's (CSPA) §1153(h)(3) automatic conversion and priority-date retention in family-preference immigration petitions.
- Respondents Osorio are aged-out derivative beneficiaries of petitions filed by family members; petitioners Scialabba are USCIS officials challenging the interpretation.
- The Ninth Circuit held §1153(h)(3) unambiguously entitles all aged-out derivatives to automatic conversion and priority-date retention, and reversed a BIA interpretation.
- The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the statute is ambiguous and that deference should be given to the BIA's reasonable interpretation under Chevron; the Board limited relief to a subset of aged-out derivatives.
- The decision remands for further proceedings consistent with the Court’s Chevron-based framework and the Board’s restrained reading of automatic conversion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is §1153(h)(3) unambiguous about who gets automatic conversion and priority date retention? | Osorio: the text unambiguously covers all five categories. | Scialabba: the text is ambiguous; the Board may construe relief narrowly. | Ambiguous; defer to BIA's interpretation. |
| Does Chevron deference govern the BIA interpretation in this context? | Osorio seeks less deference to agency. | Scialabba: agency interpretation deserves deference as reasonable. | Yes; defer to BIA if reasonable. |
| Should the Board apply automatic conversion to all aged-out derivatives across all five categories? | Osorio: all aged-out derivatives should be eligible. | Scialabba: relief should be limited to those with seamless category-conversion (primarily F2A derivatives). | Board's narrow construction sustained. |
| What is the proper temporal trigger for automatic conversion under §1153(h)(3)? | The Court defers to the Board's interpretation on timing and avoids a broad, administrative juggling scheme. |
Key Cases Cited
- Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984) (judicial deference when statute ambiguous; agency interpretation favored if reasonable)
- INS v. Aguirre-Aguirre, 526 U.S. 415 (1999) (deference appropriate in immigration statute interpretations)
- National Assn. of Home Builders v. Defenders of Wildlife, 551 U.S. 644 (2007) (ambiguity in statute may justify deferring to agency’s reasonable fill-in of gaps)
- United States v. Ron Pair Enterprises, Inc., 489 U.S. 235 (1989) (two remedies joined by 'and' may be distinct; aid in interpreting statutory relief clauses)