Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca9-09-35734/USCOURTS-ca9-09-35734-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 

---

FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

GABRIEL RUIZ-DIAZ; HYUN SOOK 

SONG; CINDY LEE MARSH; PETER

GILLETTE; SALECK OULD DAH OULD

SIDINE; PABLO SANDOVAL; YURIY

KASYANOV; LELIA TENREYRO-VIANA;

EDGARDO GASTON ROMERO

LACUESTA; ROSARIO RAZO ROMERO;

YOUN SU NAM; HAROLD MICHAEL

CARL LAPIAN; LAND OF MEDICINE;

UKRAINIAN AUTOCEPHALOUS

ORTHODOX CHURCH; SEATTLE

MENNONITE CHURCH,

Plaintiffs-Appellees, No. 09-35734

v. D.C. No.  2:07-cv-01881-RSL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; UNITED

STATES CITIZENSHIP AND OPINION

IMMIGRATION SERVICES; UNITED

STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND

SECURITY; UNITED STATES

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; MICHAEL

AYTES, Acting Deputy Director of

Citizenship and Immigration

Services; JANET NAPOLITANO,

Secretary of Department of

Homeland Security; ERIC H.

HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

Attorney General,

Defendants-Appellants. 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Washington

Robert S. Lasnik, Chief District Judge, Presiding

12509

Case: 09-35734 08/20/2010 ID: 7446490 DktEntry: 29-1 Page: 1 of 13
Argued and Submitted

July 12, 2010—Seattle, Washington

Filed August 20, 2010

Before: Pamela Ann Rymer and N. Randy Smith,

Circuit Judges, and Donald E. Walter, Senior District Judge.*

Opinion by Judge Rymer

*The Honorable Donald E. Walter, Senior United States District Judge

for Western Louisiana, sitting by designation. 

12510 RUIZ-DIAZ v. UNITED STATES

Case: 09-35734 08/20/2010 ID: 7446490 DktEntry: 29-1 Page: 2 of 13
COUNSEL

Melissa S. Leibman, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of

Immigration Litigation, Washington, D.C., for the defendantsappellants.

Robert Pauw, Gibbs Houston Pauw, Seattle, Washington, for

the plaintiffs-appellees.

12512 RUIZ-DIAZ v. UNITED STATES

Case: 09-35734 08/20/2010 ID: 7446490 DktEntry: 29-1 Page: 3 of 13
OPINION

RYMER, Circuit Judge:

We must decide whether a regulation providing that alien

beneficiaries of special immigrant religious worker visa petitions may file an application for adjustment of status only

when their visa petition has been approved, 8 C.F.R.

§ 245.2(a)(2)(i)(B), is a permissible construction of 8 U.S.C.

§ 1255(a).1 Section 1255(a) provides that the status of an alien

who has been inspected and admitted or paroled into the

United States may be adjusted by the Attorney General2 if the

alien makes an application, is eligible to receive an immigrant

visa, and an immigrant visa is immediately available when he

applies. 

Gabriel Ruiz-Diaz represents a class of alien beneficiaries

of special immigrant religious worker visa petitions, and organizations that employ religious workers, who maintain that

the regulation is invalid under the statute. The district court

agreed, granting summary judgment for Ruiz-Diaz. It reasoned that in § 1255(a), Congress clearly determined which

aliens are eligible to apply for adjustment of status — those

who are “inspected and admitted or paroled” — and the regulation prevents otherwise eligible aliens from submitting an

application because they don’t meet a requirement that is not

in the statute: having an approved visa petition. The court also

rejected the government’s position that § 245.2(a)(2)(i)(B)

simply regulates the application process under § 1255(a)(1),

holding instead that the regulation unreasonably interprets

1By contrast, the regulation permits alien beneficiaries of family and

higher preference employment-based petitions to file an application to

adjust status concurrently with their visa petition. 

2

In May 2006, the Attorney General transferred authority over adjustment of status applications for arriving aliens to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). See 8 C.F.R. §§ 245.2(a)(1), 1245.2(a)(1) (2006). In

general, we refer to the Attorney General because it was he who promulgated the regulation. 

RUIZ-DIAZ v. UNITED STATES 12513

Case: 09-35734 08/20/2010 ID: 7446490 DktEntry: 29-1 Page: 4 of 13
“immediately available” as meaning two different things —

that a visa number is available when the application is filed

(in the case of family and higher preference employmentbased beneficiaries), and that an alien must be eligible for

immediate assignment of a visa number, i.e., the petition has

already been approved (in the case of special immigrant

employment-based beneficiaries). Accordingly, after granting

summary judgment for Ruiz-Diaz and declaring the bar

against concurrent filings in 8 C.F.R. § 245.2(a)(2)(i)(B)

invalid, the court issued a permanent injunction requiring the

government to accept as properly filed adjustment of status

applications for religious workers filed concurrently with visa

petitions. The government appealed.

Applying Chevron’s two-step analysis,3 we conclude that

the statute is silent on the timing of visa petitions and applications for adjustment of status. Congress conferred discretion

on the Attorney General to devise regulations to implement

§ 1255(a), and we cannot say that the agency’s interpretation

in 8 C.F.R. § 245.2(a)(2)(i)(B) is arbitrary, capricious, or

manifestly contrary to the statute. This being so, we reverse

the judgment and vacate the injunction. However, other

claims that were mooted by the district court’s ruling now

present a live controversy, so we remand for further proceedings.4

I

Up to 5000 special immigrant visas may be granted to religious workers each year.5

 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(4); 8 U.S.C.

3Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837

(1984). 

4Ruiz-Diaz also asserted claims that the regulation violated the Due Process and the Equal Protection Clauses, the First Amendment, and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb, et seq. 

5

In addition to religious workers, special immigrant visas are made

available to a number of different types of employment-based immigrants,

described in 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(27), in an amount not to exceed 7.1 percent of the yearly worldwide limit of employment-based immigrant visas.

8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(4). 

12514 RUIZ-DIAZ v. UNITED STATES

Case: 09-35734 08/20/2010 ID: 7446490 DktEntry: 29-1 Page: 5 of 13
§ 1101(a)(27)(C). This type of special immigrant visa is for

ministers, religious workers in a professional capacity in a

religious vocation or occupation, and religious workers in a

religious vocation or occupation as defined in

§ 1101(a)(27)(C). A person seeking a special immigrant religious worker visa may be overseas or in the United States.

Many such individuals who are already present in this country

are on a non-immigrant visa (R-1 visa). 8 U.S.C.

§ 1101(a)(15)(R); 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(r). As with all nonimmigrant visas, the R-1 is issued for a definite duration; a

non-immigrant religious worker who holds an R-1 visa may

stay for a maximum of five years. 8 U.S.C.

§ 1101(a)(15)(R)(ii); 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(r)(4)-(6). The alien

must depart when the five-year period has expired, unless he

has sought to adjust status prior to the R-1 visa’s expiration.6

If he does none of these things, the alien’s status will be

unlawful and he may begin to accrue an unlawful presence.

See 8 U.S.C. § 1255(k). If the alien accrues a period of unlawful presence of more than 180 days, he will be statutorily ineligible for adjustment of status and United States Citizenship

and Immigration Services will deny his application. 8 U.S.C.

§ 1255(c), (k). 

A religious organization employer sets the process of

obtaining a special immigrant religious worker visa in motion

by filing a Form I-360 Petition for Special Immigrant.7 To

qualify, religious workers must have been engaged in the

work for which they are applying for at least two years prior

to filing the petition. 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(27)(C)(iii). The petition is the alien’s opportunity to show that he or she may be

classified in one of the family or employment preference cate6An alien who leaves the United States may apply for a different nonimmigrant visa or an immigrant visa from abroad. 

7Aliens applying based on family relationships file a Petition for Alien

Relative (Form I-130), and applicants applying based on employment in

the first three employment-based preference categories file a Petition for

Alien Worker (Form I-140). 

RUIZ-DIAZ v. UNITED STATES 12515

Case: 09-35734 08/20/2010 ID: 7446490 DktEntry: 29-1 Page: 6 of 13
gories identified in § 1153. Kyung Park v. Holder, 572 F.3d

619, 622 (9th Cir. 2009). All special immigrants, including

religious workers, are in the fourth preference employmentbased category. Id. § 1153(b)(4). 

Apart from filing the petition, an alien seeking to adjust status to that of a lawful permanent resident must apply for

adjustment of status. This would be on a Form I-485 Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status. This

case involves adjustment of status. 

The governing statute is § 1255(a), which allows an alien

who has been admitted or paroled into the United States to

adjust status in the discretion of the agency, and under regulations the agency may prescribe, if (1) the alien makes an

application; (2) the alien is eligible to receive a visa; and (3)

a visa is immediately available. In full, § 1255(a) provides:

The status of an alien who was inspected and admitted or paroled into the United States or the status of

any other alien having an approved petition for classification as a VAWA self-petitioner may be

adjusted by the Attorney General, in his discretion

and under such regulations as he may prescribe, to

that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence if (1) the alien makes an application for such

adjustment, (2) the alien is eligible to receive an

immigrant visa and is admissible to the United States

for permanent residence, and (3) an immigrant visa

is immediately available to him at the time his application is filed.

8 U.S.C. § 1255(a). An alien is “eligible to receive an immigrant visa” if he is eligible to be classified for a family or

employment-based visa. See 8 U.S.C. § 1153. An alien is “admissible to the United States for permanent residence” if he

is not inadmissible under the grounds listed in § 1182(a). And

an immigrant visa is “immediately available” if the priority

12516 RUIZ-DIAZ v. UNITED STATES

Case: 09-35734 08/20/2010 ID: 7446490 DktEntry: 29-1 Page: 7 of 13
date for the preference category is current according to the

United States Department of State Visa Bulletin issued for the

month in which the application for adjustment of status is

filed. 8 C.F.R. §§ 245.1(g)(1), 245.2(a)(2)(i)(B). The priority

date is fixed on the date when an approved visa petition is

filed. 8 C.F.R. § 245.1(g)(2).

[1] 8 C.F.R. § 245.2(a)(2)(i)(B) was promulgated on July

31, 2002 as an interim rule to improve efficiency and customer service for certain alien workers filing Form I-140 petitions. Prior to its promulgation, all alien workers were

required to obtain approval of the underlying visa petition

before applying for adjustment of status.8See Allowing in

Certain Circumstances for the Filing of Form I-140 Visa Petition Concurrently with a Form I-485 Application, 67 Fed.

Reg. 49,561, 49,561 (July 31, 2002). The regulation changed

that practice for alien workers in the first three employmentbased preference categories, allowing them to file a visa petition and application for adjustment of status at the same time;

special immigrant visa applicants — including religious

workers — may still only file a Form I-485 Application to

Adjust Status with an approved Form I-360 Petition for Special Immigrant. In its final form, the regulation provides:

If, at the time of filing, approval of a visa petition

filed for classification under section 201(b)(2)(A)(i),9

8

Initially, all aliens seeking adjustment of status were permitted to file

the visa petition concurrently with the application for adjustment of status.

However, on August 9, 1991, the agency promulgated an interim rule

requiring employment-based immigrants to obtain an approved visa petition before applying for adjustment of status. Adjustment of Status to That

of Person Admitted for Permanent Residence, 56 Fed. Reg. 37,864, 37,864

(Aug. 9, 1991). The rule did not affect immediate relatives and aliens in

family-based preference classes filing under §§ 201(b)(2)(A)(i) and

203(a), respectively, who were still permitted to file concurrently. The

final rule was issued on October 2, 1991. 56 Fed. Reg. 49,839, 49,839

(Oct. 2, 1991). 

9

INA § 201(b)(2)(A)(i) pertains to immediate relatives (children,

spouses and parents) of United States citizens. See 8 U.S.C.

§ 1151(b)(2)(A)(i). 

RUIZ-DIAZ v. UNITED STATES 12517

Case: 09-35734 08/20/2010 ID: 7446490 DktEntry: 29-1 Page: 8 of 13
section 203(a)10 or section 203(b)(1), (2), or (3)11 of

the Act would make a visa immediately available to

the alien beneficiary, the alien beneficiary’s adjustment application will be considered properly filed

whether submitted concurrently with or subsequent

to the visa petition, provided that it meets the filing

requirements contained in parts 103 and 245. For

any other classification, the alien beneficiary may

file the adjustment application only after the Service

has approved the visa petition.

8 C.F.R. § 245.2(a)(2)(i)(B) (footnotes added).

II

[2] We review whether the regulation conflicts with the

statute under the two-part test set out in Chevron, U.S.A., Inc.

v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837

(1984). Under step one, we ask whether Congress has spoken

to the question. If Congress has done so unambiguously, we

accept its statement as controlling. But if Congress has not

spoken to the precise issue because the statute is either silent

or ambiguous, we go to step two and consider whether the

agency’s interpretation is a reasonable, permissible construction of the statute. If it is, we defer to the agency. Escobar v.

10INA § 203(a) provides for other family members such as unmarried

sons and daughters of a United States citizen over the age of 21, spouses

and unmarried sons and daughters of legal permanent residents, married

sons and daughters of United States citizens, and brothers and sisters of

United States citizens. See 8 U.S.C. § 1153(a). 

11INA § 203(b)(1) applies to immigrants with extraordinary ability, outstanding professors and researchers, and certain multinational executives

and managers. See 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(1). Section 203(b)(2) covers immigrants who are members of professions holding advanced degrees or of

exceptional ability. See id. § 1153(b)(2). Section 203(b)(3) concerns

skilled workers, professionals, and other qualified immigrants capable of

performing unskilled labor for which qualified workers are not available

in the United States. See id. § 1153(b)(3). 

12518 RUIZ-DIAZ v. UNITED STATES

Case: 09-35734 08/20/2010 ID: 7446490 DktEntry: 29-1 Page: 9 of 13
Holder, 567 F.3d 466, 472 (9th Cir. 2009); Bona v. Gonzales,

425 F.3d 663, 668 (9th Cir. 2005). When, as here, Congress

has expressly conferred authority on the agency to implement

a statute by regulation, the regulations have “controlling

weight unless they are arbitrary, capricious, or manifestly

contrary to the statute.” Chevron, 467 U.S. at 843-44. This is

particularly true in the immigration context “for executive

officials ‘exercise especially sensitive political functions that

implicate questions of foreign relations.’ ” Negusie v. Holder,

129 S. Ct. 1159, 1164 (2009) (quoting INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S.

94, 100 (1988)).

Ruiz-Diaz submits that Congress intended for § 1255(a) to

provide the full eligibility criteria for filing an application for

adjustment of status, and that the regulation contravenes this

intent by redefining who is eligible to apply. As he points out,

we held in Bona v. Gonzales, 425 F.3d 663 (9th Cir. 2005),

that § 1255(a) unambiguously defines who is eligible — those

who have been “admitted or paroled” into the country — and

that a regulation which deemed a paroled alien an “arriving

alien” regardless of his parole status was invalid. Id. at 667-

70. However, a similar question is not presented here. Unlike

the regulation at issue in Bona, § 245.2(a)(2)(i)(B) does not

affect who is eligible to apply. Any alien “admitted or

paroled” into the United States may apply for adjustment if he

is eligible to be classified for a visa and a visa number is current when his application is filed. Thus, the statutory criteria

for eligibility are intact.

[3] For this reason, we disagree with the district court that

the statute clearly speaks to the precise issue presented.

Rather, we conclude at Chevron step one that the statute is

silent with respect to when visa petitions and applications for

adjustment of status may be accepted and processed in relation to each other. It says nothing at all about whether they

must, or may, be filed concurrently or consecutively, or in

what order. 

RUIZ-DIAZ v. UNITED STATES 12519

Case: 09-35734 08/20/2010 ID: 7446490 DktEntry: 29-1 Page: 10 of 13
Given congressional silence on the issue of timing, we must

decide at Chevron step two whether the agency’s approach is

a permissible construction of the statute. In this connection,

we note that § 1255(a) confers discretion on the Attorney

General to adjust status “under such regulations he may prescribe.” Thus, Congress expressly manifested its intent that

the agency regulate the process by which status will be

adjusted except for three statutory prerequisites: (1) the alien

must make an application; (2) the alien must be eligible to

receive an immigrant visa and be admissible; and (3) an

immigrant visa must be immediately available to the alien at

the time he applies. As the Court stated in Chevron, “[w]e

have long recognized that considerable weight should be

accorded to an executive department’s construction of a statutory scheme it is entrusted to administer . . . .” 467 U.S. at

844. Thus, we must determine not how we would interpret the

statute, but whether the agency’s interpretation is reasonable.

[4] Ruiz-Diaz and the district court posit that it is unreasonable for the agency to interpret the same words in the third

condition — that an immigrant visa be “immediately available” — differently depending upon the class of worker. In

their view, the agency impermissibly interpreted this phrase

on the one hand to mean that higher preference workers who

do not have an approved visa petition may file for adjustment

of status, and on the other hand to mean that religious workers

who do not have an approved visa petition may not file for

adjustment of status. However, with regard to question before

us — whether the agency impermissibly requires alien beneficiaries of special immigrant visa petitions to apply for adjustment of status only after their visa petition is approved — we

conclude that the agency’s interpretation of the statute is reasonable. Section 1255(a)(3) does not prohibit consecutive filing. Beyond this, the agency has already construed the term

“immediately available” in 8 C.F.R. § 245.1(g)(1), which

defines the term to mean that the immigrant’s priority date for

a visa number is current. An application to adjust status may

be accepted for filing and processing if the applicant’s place

12520 RUIZ-DIAZ v. UNITED STATES

Case: 09-35734 08/20/2010 ID: 7446490 DktEntry: 29-1 Page: 11 of 13
on the waiting list is earlier than the date shown in the State

Department’s Visa Bulletin. Id. For applicants with previously approved visa petitions, their place in the queue is

apparent at the time of filing. It is not manifestly contrary to

the statute for the agency to accept the applications of alien

beneficiaries of special immigrant religious worker visas for

filing and processing only when they have a visa in hand, thus

making it obvious that the visa number is “immediately available.” 

Ruiz-Diaz’s real concern is that USCIS does not process

the petition for a special immigrant religious worker visa soon

enough for it to do many of them any good. It takes time for

visa petitions to work their way through the system; the government estimates five-six months on average, though in individuals cases it may take longer. From Ruiz-Diaz’s

perspective the problem is compounded for those religious

workers who are present in the country on R-1 non-immigrant

visas, because they do not get the benefit of a stay that comes

with filing an application for adjustment of status, 8 U.S.C.

§ 1255(k), and must depart the country when their R-1 visas

expire. It is this conundrum that led Ruiz-Diaz to challenge

the regulation. 

[5] He claims that religious workers such as he who are

eligible to apply for adjustment of status will accrue more

than 180 days of unlawful presence while waiting for their

visa petitions to be approved. As a practical matter, Ruiz-Diaz

contends, the effect is to disable these particular alien beneficiaries from adjustment of status even though they are otherwise eligible under the statute. To Ruiz-Diaz delay is in effect

denial. Therefore, he maintains, it is not permissible for the

agency to deny applications in this manner. Unfortunate

though this consequence may be for the individuals involved,

§ 1255(a) does not address the speed with which the agency

must process petitions. We cannot say that it is unreasonable

for the agency to determine that visa petitions for alien beneficiaries of special immigrant religious worker visas must be

RUIZ-DIAZ v. UNITED STATES 12521

Case: 09-35734 08/20/2010 ID: 7446490 DktEntry: 29-1 Page: 12 of 13
approved before an application for adjustment of status may

be filed and processed. 

The parties make additional arguments in support of their

positions that we decline to reach. For example, the government suggests that its regulation is justified to reduce fraud in

the Special Immigrant Religious Worker Visa Program, and

Ruiz-Diaz contends that the regulation offends the Equal Protection Clause and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

The district court did not consider these claims because its

disposition effectively mooted them. Our disposition, however, revives them. We express no opinion on their merits,

which we leave to the district court in the first instance.

Having decided that the regulation withstands Chevron

review, we reverse the judgment and vacate the injunction.

We remand for such other proceedings as the district court

deems appropriate.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

12522 RUIZ-DIAZ v. UNITED STATES

Case: 09-35734 08/20/2010 ID: 7446490 DktEntry: 29-1 Page: 13 of 13