Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-01179/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-01179-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PUSHPA DEVI,

Plaintiff,

 v.

EDUARDO AGUIRRE, JR., Director, United

States Citizenship and Immigration Services,

Defendant.

 /

No. C 05-01179 JSW

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR SUMMARY

JUDGMENT AND DENYING

DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Now before the Court is the motion for summary judgment filed by Plaintiff Pushpa

Devi and the motion for summary judgment by Defendant Eduardo Aguirre, Jr., Director of the

United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”). Having carefully reviewed the

parties’ arguments, the relevant legal authority and having had the benefit of oral argument, the

Court hereby GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and DENIES Defendant’s

motion for summary judgment.

BACKGROUND

According to the administrative record in this matter, Plaintiff Devi, a citizen of India,

was admitted to the United States as an asylee on June 27, 1996 in accordance with 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1158(c), on the basis of an asylee relative petition filed on her behalf by her asylee father. On

October 25, 2000, while her application to adjust her status from asylee to an alien lawfully

admitted for permanent residence was pending, Defendant informed Devi that she was no

longer eligible for an adjustment of status because she had reached the age of majority. 

Defendant sent 

Case 3:05-cv-01179-JSW Document 22 Filed 10/18/05 Page 1 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

 At oral argument, counsel for Defendant contended that the USCIS provided Devi

with the “wrong letter” in June 2002 when granting her asylum status by stating that she was

eligible for following to join benefits. However, the administrative record does not reflect

that the USCIS conceded that it committed such an error and there is no evidence that Devi

was ever sent the corrected information. 

2

an asylum application to Devi and informed her that she had to apply on her own as an asylee. 

On November 20, 2000, Devi complied and submitted her application for asylum under 8

U.S.C. § 1158(a). 

On October 26, 2001, Devi married Kamlesh Kumar Toora, also a native and citizen of

India. 

On June 18, 2002, USCIS sent Devi a letter granting her asylum application under 8

U.S.C. § 1158(a) and informed her that her asylum status was granted nunc pro tunc to June 27,

1996, the date she was originally granted derivative asylum status. The letter informed her that

her asylee status entitled her to apply for immigration benefits, including petitioning to accord

her spouse derivative asylum status under 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(3)(A). 

On January 27, 2004, Devi petitioned to accord her husband derivative asylum status. 

On January 20, 2004, USCIS adjusted Devi’s status to a lawful permanent resident under 8

U.S.C. § 1159(b). 

Finally, on March 7, 2004, USCIS denied Devi’s asylee relative petition on the basis

that, pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 208.21(b), Devi was not eligible to petition to accord her husband

following to join benefits because her petition was filed more than two years after the date she

was granted asylum. The denial explained that Devi’s petition was untimely because the letter

dated June 18, 2002 reflected a grant of asylum nunc pro tunc back to June 27, 1996, the date of

her arrival in the United States. Although the petition on behalf of her husband was filed less

than two years from the date of the letter informing her of the asylum status, the petition was

denied because it was filed more than two years from the actual date of asylum due to the

mechanism of backdating the grant of asylum status.1

ANALYSIS

According to Defendant’s motion for summary judgment and opposition to Plaintiff’s

motion, Devi was not eligible for following to join benefits on behalf of her husband because

Case 3:05-cv-01179-JSW Document 22 Filed 10/18/05 Page 2 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

 Defendant also contends that, regardless of the outcome of the asylee relative

petition, the story here has a happy ending because Plaintiff, a legal permanent resident as of

January 20, 2004, is entitled to file a I-130 immigration visa petition for her husband

pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1153(a)(2)(A). However, both counsel agreed at oral argument that

the waiting time for the processing of such a petition would likely result in the deportation of

Plaintiff’s husband. Defendant’s promise that Plaintiff will suffer no harm from the denial of

her aslyee relative petition on behalf of her husband therefore rings hollow.

3

she failed to petition within two years of the actual grant of asylum. This reasoning is the same

explanation from the agency itself for the denial of plaintiff’s petition. Defendant contends that

the Court is required to accord deference to the agency’s interpretation of its own statutes and

regulations.2

Plaintiff was granted aslyee status under 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a) and was instructed that she

was entitled to petition for following to join benefits under 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(3)(A). This

provision states that a spouse or child of an alien who is granted asylum may be granted the

same status as the alien if accompanying, or following to join, such alien. The Code of Federal

Regulations provides that “the asylee may request accompanying or following-to-join benefits

for his/her spouse or child by filing for each qualifying family member a separate Form I-730,

Refugee/Asylee Relative Petition, and supporting evidence . . . within 2 years of the date in

which he/she was granted asylum status.” 8 C.F.R. § 208.21(c). Defendant contends that

because Plaintiff failed to petition for following to join benefits within two years of the nunc

pro tunc date of her asylum, she was properly denied the additional benefits.

However, Defendant’s construction of 8 U.S.C. § 1158 and 8 C.F.R. § 208.21(c) creates

a Kafkaesque predicament. According to Defendant, in order to qualify for following to join

benefits, Devi would have had to apply within two years of her post-dated grant of asylum, or

by June 1998. Devi was neither a child, nor married at that time, and further, was not aware

that she would be granted asylum as a principal until June 2002 when she received the letter

granting her asylum application. Courts should reject interpretations of statutes or regulations

which produce an unjust, unreasonable, or absurd result. Maceren v. District Directo,

Immigration and Naturalization Service, 509 F.2d 934, 941 (9th Cir. 1975) (citing In re Petition

of Vacontios, 155 F. Supp. 427, 430 (S.D.N.Y. 1957)). 

Case 3:05-cv-01179-JSW Document 22 Filed 10/18/05 Page 3 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

Further, there is no evidence in the record or in the legislative history that the legal

fiction of postdating Plaintiff’s grant of asylum nunc pro tunc was intended to preclude her

from receiving other benefits. According to the administrative record, the policy of granting

asylum nunc pro tunc was adopted in order to benefit qualified children applicants who would

otherwise age out of their parents’ approved asylum applications. There is no evidence of any

intent by USCIS to affect negatively the proper adjudication of an asylum case. Defendant’s

interpretation of the statutes and regulations, as well as the legal mechanism for properly

adjudicating qualified applicants, renders an improper and facially absurd result. 

Devi’s asylum application was approved by Defendant on July 18, 2002. She was

married at the time of the asylum adjudication. Further, Devi applied for benefits for her

husband within two years of the notice that her asylum application was granted, as directed by

the USCIS. Therefore, the decision by the agency to reject the asylee relative petition for

following to join benefits for Plaintiff’s husband was in error.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion for summary

judgment and DENIES Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Judgment shall be entered

in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 18, 2005 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-01179-JSW Document 22 Filed 10/18/05 Page 4 of 4