SORIANO-VINO v. Holder
653 F.3d 1096
9th Cir.2011Background
- Soriano-Vino challenged INS handling at LAX checkpoint regarding SAW eligibility and confidentiality of SAW application information.
- INS questioned Soriano about employment history and her SAW application; she signed a sworn statement after lengthy interrogation.
- Soriano alleged coercion and that statements about not working on a farm were false.
- Agency determined she committed fraud; IJ and BIA upheld removal-related outcomes.
- Issue centered on whether SAW confidentiality provisions barred information obtained during inspection, not information from the SAW application itself.
- Court considered statutory interpretation of 8 U.S.C. § 1160(b)(6) and whether inspection-derived information fell within confidentiality scope.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether SAW confidentiality was violated by information obtained at inspection | Soriano | Soriano did not obtain SAW application data; statements came from inspection | No violation; information obtained from inspection not from the SAW application |
| Interpretation of 8 U.S.C. § 1160(b)(6) scope | Soriano | Confidentiality not absolute; allows use of information from inspection | Statutory language and intent allow inquiry at inspection; not limited to application itself |
| Role of BIA/Skidmore deference in confidentially ruling | BIA ruling should protect SAW data | BIA analysis is fact-based and persuasive for deference | Skidmore deference applied; BIA's conclusion upheld |
| Relation to Masri precedent | Masri prohibits use of SAW data | Masri distinguished; not controlling when data not from SAW application | Masri not controlling; distinction upheld |
Key Cases Cited
- Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034 (9th Cir. 2010) (standards of review for BIA decisions; de novo for law)
- Rivera v. Mukasey, 508 F.3d 1271 (9th Cir. 2007) (questions of law reviewed de novo)
- Infuturia Global Ltd. v. Sequus Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 631 F.3d 1133 (9th Cir. 2011) (statutory interpretation and reliance on plain language)
- Vasquez De Alcantar v. Holder, 645 F.3d 1097 (9th Cir. 2011) (Skidmore deference for agency rulings in unpublished decisions)
- Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U.S. 134 (1923) (non-controlling agency rulings persuasive)