Shalom Pentecostal Church v. Acting Secretary United States Department of Homeland Security
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 5551
| 3rd Cir. | 2015Background
- Carlos Alencar, a Brazilian national, entered the U.S. on a B-2 visa in 1995 and remained after it expired; he worked as a senior pastor starting in 1998 without authorization.
- The Shalom Pentecostal Church filed an I-360 petition for Alencar in 2009 seeking classification as a special immigrant religious worker; CIS denied it solely under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(m)(4) and (11) for failing to show the qualifying two years of religious work were performed "in lawful immigration status."
- CIS’s Administrative Appeals Office affirmed, concluding Alencar’s qualifying employment was not authorized under immigration law.
- Alencar and the Church sued under the APA; the District Court held the regulation ultra vires and ordered the petition granted, reasoning the INA’s text did not require lawful status for the qualifying two-year period.
- The Third Circuit affirmed the District Court’s invalidation of the regulation as contrary to the unambiguous statutory text, but reversed the grant of the petition and remanded for fact-finding on the other statutory criteria.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Article III standing to challenge I-360 denial | Alencar lost a concrete opportunity to obtain a visa; relief at petition stage is redressable | Any victory would be "pyrrhic" because statutory bars (inadmissibility/adjustment limits) likely prevent immediate adjustment | Alencar has constitutional standing; redressability assessed at the petition step, not ultimate adjustment |
| Regulatory standing under CIS rules | Special immigrant religious workers (or their representatives) have regulatory standing to appeal per 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(c) | 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(1)(iii)(B) excludes beneficiaries from administrative appeals | Held plaintiff had regulatory standing because § 204.5(c) specifically allows the alien (or on his behalf) to file for this category |
| Zone-of-interests (prudential) | The INA directly protects interests of employment-based visa applicants, including religious workers | INA primarily protects US workers; aliens’ interests are not within the statute’s zone | Alencar’s interests fall within the INA’s zone of interests for APA review |
| Validity of 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(m)(4) & (11) ("lawful status" requirement) | Regulation unlawfully adds a requirement (work performed "in lawful immigration status") not found in 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(27)(C)(iii) and renders 8 U.S.C. § 1255(k)(2) superfluous | Regulation is a reasonable agency interpretation to prevent fraud and align with INA’s structure; Congress implicitly acquiesced | Regulation is ultra vires: statute unambiguously requires continuous carrying on of religious work for two years, not lawfulness; regulation struck down |
Key Cases Cited
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (constitutional standing elements and redressability)
- Scialabba v. Cuellar de Osorio, 134 S. Ct. 2191 (immigration remedies and timing of relief)
- Monsanto Co. v. Geertson Seed Farms, 561 U.S. 139 (redressability in multi-step administrative schemes)
- Patel v. USCIS, 732 F.3d 633 (6th Cir.) (lost visa opportunity as concrete injury)
- Lexmark Int’l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 1377 (zone-of-interests test for APA suits)
- FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 529 U.S. 120 (statutory interpretation and reading statutes as coherent schemes)
- Russello v. United States, 464 U.S. 16 (presumption from inclusion/omission of statutory language)
- INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12 (limits on appellate factfinding; remand to agency for initial determinations)
- Leocal v. Ashcroft, 543 U.S. 1 (canons favoring giving effect to every statutory word)
- Lorillard v. Pons, 434 U.S. 575 (canon of ratification regarding agency interpretations)
- Dep’t of Transp. v. Public Citizen, 541 U.S. 752 (limits on inferring congressional ratification by silence)