## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 10

- 2986 N I NO A RO BELID ZE , P etitio ner, v. E R I C H. H OLDER, J R ., A tto rneyGenera l ofthe U ni ted S tat es, R es pond ent
.

Peti tionfor Revi ewof anOr de rof the B o ard of Immigration App eals
. No . A 095 592 580
A RGUED M AY 2, 2011

— D ECI DE D J UL Y 27, 2011

Befo re P OSNER, K ANN E , a nd T INDER, C ircu it Judges . K ANN E , Cir cu i tJudg e . Ni no Ar o b e l i dz e a nd her m ot h er en te re d th e U n ite d Sta te s o n t e m p o ra ry vis as in 1998. The two went on t o apply f orper m anent r esi dence. W hi l e thei r appli cati ons w er e pend i ng, N i no’ s m ot her vi o l at ed th e te r m s o fhe r t empor ar y v i sa b y c onti nui ng t o wor ki n th e U n i t e d S t a t e s a ft e r th e v i s a h a d e x p i r e d. Both appli cati ons f orr esi dence w er e deni ed i n l i ght o f N i no’ s m othe r’ s o ver si ght. A fterN i no’ s m othe r ob-2 N o. 10

- 2986 tained a new tem pora ryvi sa and rea pp l i ed f or perm anent r esi dence, N i no a gain appli ed f orr esi dence as wel l
. The ru b was th atNi no tur ne d t wenty - o ne d ur i ngthe b ur ea ucr at i c pr o ce ss . Ba se d o n Ni no’s change i n age, the Dep ar tm ent o fH om el and Secu rity concl ud ed that N i no was no l onge r a der i vati ve beneficia ry of h er m o t h er an d th u s n o lon ge r elig ible to ap p ly f orr esi de n c e under the pr ovi si on s he i nvoke d. W hen re m ov al p ro c ee d in gs be ga n, N in o cla im ed th at th e C h ild St atus Pro tect i on Act ( CSPA ) o perat ed to fre eze herag e as ofthe date o fherm othe r’ s o ri gi n alvi sa cl ass i fi cati on peti ti on, m eani ng t h at she was st i l l a benefi ci ar y o f h e r mo th e r a s o fh e r s e c o n d a p p l i c a t i o n. B o th th e i mm igr at ion j u d ge an d th e B oa rd of Im m i g r a t ion A p p ea ls wer e unc o nv i nc ed, the l at te r ho l di ng th atthe CS PA did notev en applyto N i no in l i ght o fi ts effecti ve date sect ion. N ino now pe t it ions for review of th e B oard ’s det er m i na ti o n, c l ai m i ngtha t i ts i nt er pr et at i o n o fthe effecti ve date s ecti on i s incor re ct. Because w e a gr ee w i th N i no that the Boar d’s i nter preta ti on is unp er suasi ve, we g r an t th e pe ti ti o n, v ac at e th e Bo ar d’ s o pi ni o n, a nd re m and the ca se f orfurtherpro ceedi ngs.

I. B ACK GR OUN D N i no c a me t o the Uni t e d S t a t e s i n 1 9 9 8 a t the ag e o f fourteen
. She arrived from Ge orgia w it h her m oth er, D r. Ru sod an K otaria. Dr. K otaria, a biom ed ical researc he r, was g r an te d a t empor ar y v i sa pe rm i tt i nghe r t o l i ve a nd w or k in the U ni ted S tat es f ora bri efper i od. A s her depend ant chi l d, N i no was gr anted a tem pora ry v i sa to acc om p an y her.N o. 10

- 2986 3 Over the c ours e o fthr ee yea rs , Dr. Kotar i a’ s s tarr ose w i thi n the sci enti fi c co m m unity. In 200 1, the Ch i cago M edi calS choo l fi l ed a v i sa cl ass i fi cati on peti ti on f or D r. K otaria, l abeling he r an ou tstan d ing resea r c he r. The De par tmento fHomel an d S ec uritya ppr o ve d the peti ti on in J une 200 2. T he newly

- approve d peti ti on al l owed Dr. Kotaria to d o tw o thi ngs: to co nver t her st at u s s o a s t o leg ally w or k in th e U n ite d Sta te s u n til M ar ch 8, 20 03, an d t o apply f orper m anent r esi dence ( an “adj ustm ent of status” )
. A s herdepend ant, N i no was perm i tte d to conve rtherst atus so as to r em ai n w i th her m o th era nd

— m or e im p or ta n tly

— w as ab le to apply f or p erm an en t residen ce alongs ide h er. N in o a nd Dr
. Kot ar i a appl i ed f o r a dj us tmento fs ta tu s i n Aug us t 20 02
. Bo tha ppl i ca ti o ns wer e st i l l pe ndi ng w ith th e D ep artm en t in M arch 2003, w he n D r. K otaria’s te m po r ar y v i sa e xp ir ed. Dr
. Kot ar i a co nt i nue d wor k i ng beyo nd M ar ch 200 3, i n vi ol ati on o fher v isa . In l i ght o f that e r r o r, the De pa r t men tde ni e d D r . Ko t a r i a ’ s a pp l i c ation for ad j us tm en t of statu s in De cem ber 2 004. N ino’s a p p l i c a t i o n w a s d e n i e d a tth e s a me t i me

— as a der i vati ve benefi ci ar y, N i no co uld o nl y obtain an adj ustm ent i fher mothe r ’ s a pp l i c a t i o n s uc c e e de d. D r. K ot ar ia’s p ro b lem w as ea sily r e c tifie d ; N in o’s , as it w oul d turn o ut, was not. Dr. Kotar i a r etur ned to Georg i a, obt ai ned a new tem po ra ry vi sa fro m the U ni ted S tat es Em bass y l oc at ed ther e, and re turned t o the Unite d St at es in m id -20 05 . Sh e t h en ap p lied for p er m an en t re sidence, wh i ch w as gr anted i n M ar ch 200 6. N ino rem ained in th e U nited Sta tes d uring her m oth er’s soj o ur n t o Ge o r g i a. Onc e he r mothe r r etur ne d, Ni no4 N o. 10

- 2986 fi l ed a se co nd a ppl i ca ti o n fo r a dj us tm ento fs ta tu s. The p ro b lem w as that, ar ound the ti m e that herfi rs t a pp l i cati on was deni ed, N i no had tur ned tw enty- one. Giv en he r c ha ng e i n a g e, the De par tmentde ni ed he r s ec o nd appl i ca ti o n f o r a dj us tmento fs ta tu s, r ea so ni ng th at sh e w as no l onge r a d er i vati ve benefi ci ar y o fherm othe r as ofherse cond appli cati on a nd thus c oul d no t ob tain an ad j us tm en t throu gh her. Rem ova l pro ceedi ngs forN i no co m m enced on Februar y 1 0, 20 06. A t the r em ova l hear i ng, N i no co n te ste d th e den i alo f he r se co nd a dj us tment
- o f

- st atus a ppl i ca ti o n. She ar gued that the substant i ve part ofthe CSPA o perat ed to free ze h er ag e at t h e d at e of h er m ot h er ’s in itia l cla ss ificati on peti ti on, m eani ng tha t s he was still t h e der i vati ve benefi ci ar y o fherm othe r as ofherse cond appli cati on f oradj ustm ent o fst atus. T h e im m i gr ati on j ud ge di sa g r ee d, r ul i ngo n po l i cyg r o unds tha t th e CS PA was mean t to pr o te ctc hi l dr enw ho age o utdur i ngthe proce ssing o fthei r ap p lica ti on. I t was not, acc or ding to the i m m i gr ati on j ud ge, m eant to ass i st parti es w hose a p p li cation s w ere d en ied on other grou nd s. T he Boa rd affi rm ed i n a no n-pr ecedentia l o pini on, ag re ei ng with the r eas oni ng o fthe i m m i gr ati on j ud ge. N i no br ought her c as e to thi s co urt on a peti ti on f or r ev i ew, c l ai m i nga g ain tha t th e pl ain l an gu ag e o fthe C S P A d i c t a t e d th a ts h e wa s s t i l l a c h i l d f o ra dj u s t me nt pu rpos es. W e r efer re d the ca se to m edi ati on, afterwh i ch th e par ti es fi l ed a m o ti o n wi ththe Bo ar d t o r eo penthe case . Th e B oard agreed to reopen , bu t pe rm it t e d very l i m i te d b riefi ng, f o r ec l o singa r eply b r i effr o m Ni no . TheN o. 10

- 2986 5 B oa rd th en iss u ed an ot h er n on -p re c ed en tia l op in ion, aga in den y i ng Ni no ’ s a pp e a l
. Th i s t i me the Bo a r d r e l i ed on th e effec ti ve dat e se ct i o n o fthe CS PA, r ul i ngtha t N i no d id n otqu alify for a n y of t h e C SP A ’s b en efit s. Ni n o a g a i n p e t i t i o n s th i s c o u r tf o r r e v i e w.

II. A NA LYSIS N i n o ’ s s i n g l e c l a i m i n h e r p e t i t i o n f o r r e v i e w i s th a t th e Bo a r d e r r e d i n i t s r e a di ng o f the CS PA’ s e ffe c t i v e date se c tio n . Th e g ov er n m en t’s res p on se is t w o-fo ld : fi rs t, it cl ai m s th atN in o di d no t ex ha us t he r r emedi es b efo r e th e Board; and se c on d, i t a rgues that the CSPA does not appl y t o Ni no b ec au se s he doe s no t f al l wi th i n the Act’ s effec ti ve da te s ec ti o n.
A. Adminis t r at i veExhaus t i on W e ta k e up the a l l eg ed f ai l ur e to e xha us t fi r st . The g o v e r n me n tp o i n t s o u tth a tNi n o ma d e n o a r g um en t re gar ding t h e e ffecti ve date pro vi si on a nd thus di d not exhaust heradm i n ist rati ve re m edi es. N i no co ncedes a s m uch. S he f aul ts the l i m i ted br i efi ng sc h ed u le i m posed o n the p a rt i es by the Bo a r d wh e n the c a s e wa s r e o pe ne d. T hat s chedule, N i no co m pla i ns, i m peded herfro m r eply i ngt o the g o ve r nm en t’ s el ev en th

- ho ura r g um en t r eg ar di ngthe effec ti ve da te pr o vi si o n, a n i ss ue tha t no o ne

— no t th e Bo ar d, th e g o ve r nm en t, or N i no

— ra i sed pri orto the re openi ng. A s the governm ent c or re ctl y obser ves, an i m m i gr ati on peti ti onerm ust e xhaust al l ava i lab l e a dm i ni str ati ve6 N o. 10

- 2986

r e med i e s b e f o r e s e e k i ngr ev i e w i n thi s c o ur t . 8 U. S
. C. § 1 25 2(d )(1) . Th at ob liga tio n u su ally fore c los es a p e t iti onerfro m r ai si ng an is su e in federa l co urt that w as not ra ise d be for e t h e im m igr at ion trib u n al. A g u il ar-M ej ia v . H o lder, 6 1 6 F
. 3 d 6 9 9 , 7 0 4 ( 7 th C i r . 2 0 1 0 )
. We s ay “ us ually ” b ec au se th er e a re a n u m b er of ex c ep tio n s t o th is r ul e. F i r st, a nd l es s r el ev an t he r e, a re the e xc ept i o ns th at flow fro m the f act that the g ener alexhausti on r equir em ent i s no t “ a j uri sdic ti onalr ule in t h e str i ct s ense th at th e Su p re m e C ou rth as em p h as ize d w e m u s t fo ll ow.” Issaq v. Ho lder, 617 F .3 d 9 6 2, 968 (7th Cir. 2010). Beca u se the rul e i s no n-j uri sdic ti onal, i t i s s ubj ect to w ai ver, f or feitur e, and other disc re ti onar y c onsi deratio n s. Jua rez v . Ho lder, 599 F.3d 560 , 5 6 4 n . 3 (7th C ir. 20 10 ); Ko rsun skiy v . Go nz a les , 46 1 F .3d 84 7, 84 9 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 6)
. S ec o nd, a nd mor e g er m an e to thi s ca se , i s th e excepti on f or is su es thatar e no t r ai sed bythe parti es but i nstea d add re sse d by the adm in istr ati ve age ncy its elf. M B HC o m m o dity A dv iso rs, Inc . v. C o m m o dity F utu res Trading Co m m ’n , 250 F.3d 105 2, 1060 n . 3 (7th C ir. 2001); Wat s on v. He nde rs on , 2 22 F .3d 32 0, 32 2 (7 th C ir. 20 00 ). Th is latte r ex c e p t io n re c o g n iz e s th a t on c e th e Boa rd add re sse s a n i ssue o n i ts own , the i ssue i s “ exhausted to the e xtent i t co uld be , ” e ven i fi t was notr ai sed by th e p ar tie s. See Na z a r o v a v . INS , 17 1 F
. 3d 478, 48 9 ( 7th C ir. 1999) (M an ion, J. , dissen ting). Prac t i c a l c o ns i de r a t i o ns u nd e r g i r d thi s s e c o nd e xc e pti on. The exhausti on r equi re m ent s er ves a num bero f goa l s: i t gi ves the Board an opportunity to ap p ly its s p e c i aliz ed kn ow led ge an d ex p er ien c e t o th e m at te r, it pr o vi des the pe ti ti o ne r wi ththe r el i efr eque st ed i n theN o. 10

- 2986 7 fi rs t instance , and i t p ro vid es us w i th r eas oni ng to re v iew
. See P a dil la v. G o nz a les , 47 0 F
. 3d 1209 , 12 13 ( 7th C ir. 20 06 ); G onz alez v . O ’Co nnell, 35 5 F
. 3d 1010 , 10 17- 18 ( 7th Ci r. 20 04)
. W hen the Board addres ses an i ssue on its ow n, all of th es e c on c er n s a re sa tis fied , an d it ther ef or e m ak es l i ttl e s ense to deem an i ssue not ra i sed by the par ti es unrevi ew abl e. The parti es ar gue ne edl ess l y o verwh etherwe c an se t asi de N i no’ s f ai l ure to bring up the e ffec ti ve date se ct i o n, i g no r i ngthe f ac t th atthe Bo ar d e xha us te d the m att er . In i ts m os t re cent or der, the Board depart ed fro m i ts pri orr ea so n for denying N i no’ s a pp eal
. Rather th anc o nt i nue t o r ely o n the po l i cyo fthe CS PA, the B oa rd r ule d that Nino did notf al l withi n the effecti ve date s ecti on o fthe A c t. In doi ng so , the Board appl i ed i ts kno wl edg e an d e xpe r ti se t o the i ssue, an aly zingthe r ea cho fthe e ffec ti ve da te s ec ti o n a nd pr o vi di ngus w i th reas oni ng to r evi ew . Exhausti on s ati sfi ed, we can p r o c e e d t o N i n o ’ s c l a i m.
B. Th eEf

f e c t i v eDa t eS e c t i o n o

f th eC S PA N i no pr i m ar i l y a r g ue s th at th e Bo ar d’ s r ea di ngo fthe effecti ve d at e secti on i s a t o dd s with the text, purpose, an d l eg i sl at i ve hi st o r y o ftha t se cti on. F o r i ts pa r t, the gov er nm ent r esponds thatN i no cl earl y f al l s o utsi de of the pla i n text of the effecti ve date sect i on. I n th e a lte rnati ve , the g o ve r nm en t s ub m i ts tha t, e ve n i fthe t ex t o fthe effective dat e section i s am biguo u s , the Boa rd ’s int erp r e t a t i o n o fi twa s a r e a s o n ab l e o n e t o wh i c h we sh ou ld d efer.8 N o. 10

- 2986 The CSPA ’ s e ffecti ve date s ecti on pro vi des: The am endm ents m ade bythi s Act shal l tak e e ffect on th e d a t e o f th e e n ac tm en t o f th is A c t a n d sh all ap p ly to an y ali en w ho is a deriva tive ben efi ciary orany othe r benefi ci ar y o f

— ( 1) a pet itio n forcl ass i fi cati on under secti on 2 04 ofthe I m m i gr ati on an d N ati onal i ty A ct ( 8 U
. S. C. 1154 ) ap p ro ved bef or e s uch date but only i fa fi nal deter m i nati on has notb ee n m ade on the b enefi ci ar y’ s a pp l i cati on f oran i m m i gr ant v i sa oradj ustm ent o f st a t us t o l a wfulp e r man e ntr e s i de nc e pur su an t to s ucha ppr o ve d pe ti ti o n; ( 2) a peti ti on f orc las sifica ti on under secti on 2 04 ofth e I m m i gr ati on a nd N ati o na l i tyAct( 8 U. S
. C
. 1 15 4) pe ndi ng on o r aftersuch date ; o r ( 3) an appli cat i on pending bef or e the Depar tmento fJ usti ce o r the De par tment ofS tat e o n oraftersuch date
. Ch i l d Sta tus Pr ote cti on Act of20 06, P u b . L
. N o. 10 7- 208, § 8, 1 16 S ta t. 9 30 ( 20 06 )
. The s i ng l e m embe r o fthe Boa rd who he ar d the c ase vi ewe d s ubs ec ti o n ( 1) a s i m po sing tw o re quir em ents: a vi sa petitio n m ust hav e be en approve d pri orto the CSPA ’ s e nactm ent, and th er e m ust not hav e be e n a final dete rm ination on a bene fi ciary’s appli cati on a t an y ti m e a fter w ar ds. Dr. Kotar i a’ s peti ti on was a ppr o ve d o n J une 2 7, 2 00 2, a l m o sta year b efo r e th eN o. 10

- 2986 9 CSPA was enact ed, so N i no cl ear ed the fi rs t hurdl e. Bu tb e c a us e Ni no h a d a fi na l de t e r mi na t i o n o n o ne a ppli cati on f oradj ustm ent o fst atus, the Board co ncl ud ed th ats he t r i pped o ve r the s ec ond r equi r ement . The B o ar d de te r m i ne d tha t ne i th ero fthe o th ers ubs ec ti o ns appli ed to N i no, and thus N i no was notco vered und er th e C S P A. W e r evi ew i ssues o fl aw

— i ncl ud i ng chal l enges to th e Bo ar d’ s i nt er pr et at i o n o f th e I m m i g r at i o n a nd Nat i o na l i ty Ac t( I NA)

— deno vo . K io rki s v. Ho lder, 63 4 F
. 3d 924, 92 8 ( 7th Ci r . 2 01 1)
. Oura na l y si s be g i ns wi ththe st at u te ’s la n gu ag e. Barn har tv. Sigm on Coal Co. , 534 U
. S. 438, 45 0 ( 2002 )
. W here Congr ess ’ s intent i s cl ear fro m thatl anguage , i t m ust be gi ven e ffect

— ne i th erthe ag en c y n or th is c ou rt m ay d ev iat e fro m it. See Che vron, U .S .A ., Inc. v. Natural R es . D ef
. Co uncil, Inc. , 4 6 7U. S
. 8 37, 842-43 (198 4). W he re the sta tu te is am biguou s, how ever, w e o w e s om e defer ence to the inter preta tio n advanced by the a gencyas si gned to adm i ni ste r the s tatu te . Wh it e v. Sc i b ana , 390 F.3d 997, 1000 (7th Cir. 2004). Eac h pa r tyb eg i ns b y a r g ui ngtha t th e te xto fthe effe c tiv e d at e s ec tio n is u n am b igu ou s a n d m ilita te s in its f avor . W e d isagree. T he Boa rd has alread y d eterm i ned, i n a pr evi ous o pini on, th at the l anguage o fsubse c tio n (1) is u n c lea r, see In re A vi l a - P e r ez , 24 I
. & N
. Dec. 78, 83 ( BIA 2007), and w e a re si m i l ar l y per ple xed by i t. T h e “ b efo re su c h d at e” la n g u ag e m igh t b e re as on ab ly u n d er st oo d as ap p lyin g on ly to th e t ex t p re c ed in g it

— a r ea di ngthe Bo ar d a d o pte d a nd the g o ve r nm en t ar gu es for tod ay . U n d er th at re ad in g, su b se c tio n (1) w ou ld10 N o. 10

- 2986

T he p resen ce of an am b igu ity here sh ou ld ha rd ly b e a su rp rise 1 t o the gove rn m en t . The web s i t e f or the Uni t ed S t at es Ci t i ze ns hi p an d I m m i gr at i on Se rvi c es, the di vi s i on ofthe Depar t m en t of H om elan d Secu rity tha t ov ersees law ful im m igr atio n to t h e U nited States, pr ov id es an exp lan atio n for th e C S P A ’s el igibili ty re q uirem ents . The si te st ates thata party i s covered underthe C SPA ifthe y a re “the be ne fi c i ar y ofa pen di ng o r a ppr ov e d v i s a pe t i t i ono n ora f ter A ugu s t6 , 2 0 0 2 , ” the y ha ve (co n tin u ed ...) not apply to benefi ci ar i es ofpeti ti ons app ro ve d pri orto th e e ffe c t i v e da t e i fthe y h a d a fi na l de c i s i o n o n a n a ppl i ca ti o n a t an y t i m e a ftertha t po i nt

— i nc l udi nga ny ti m e afte r the s ta tu te was e nacted
. T ha t r ea di ngi s co nsi ste nt with the t ext o fsubse cti on ( 1) , but i t infr i ng es on th e o ver al l st ructur e o fthe effecti ve date s ecti on, wh ose o th ers ubs ec ti o ns e xpr es sly de alw ith co nduc t o cc ur r i ng afte r the CS PA’ s en ac tment . On th e o th erha nd, the “befor e s uch date” l anguage co uld be r ati onal l y r ead to apply to the e nti re ty ofsubse cti on ( 1)

— a r e a di nga dvanced byN i no. U nd er that r eadi ng, subse cti on ( 1) w oul d cove r al l ben efic i ar i es ofpeti ti ons approve d before the statu te w as en acte d , rem oving from the C SPA ’s c o v e r a g e o nly tho s e b e ne fi c i a r i e s wh o h a d a fi na l a dj ud i cati on o n an app licati on pri orto the CSPA ’ s e nactm en t. T h at rea d in g w ou ld be tt er se rv e t h e o ve ra ll str ucture ofthe effecti ve da te secti on, but i t i s no t, o n i ts f ace, a m or e natura l r eadi ng o fsubse cti ons ( 1) ’ s t ext. W he n, a s he r e, “th er e ar e two pl au sibl e butdi ffer en t in te rp re ta tio n s o f st at u to ry lan gu ag e, th er e is am b igu ity .” Kha n v . U nited Sta tes , 548 F.3d 549 , 556 (7th C ir. 2008). 1N o. 10

- 2986 11

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 1 not“h ad a fi nald ec i s i on on an appl i c at i on f or adj us t m en tof st atus . . . bef ore Aug ust 6, 2002, ” and they “ ‘ se ek to ac quire’ p erm an en t r e si d e nc e w ithin 1 y ear of a v isa b eco m ing av aila b le .” U n ite d St a te s C iti z en sh ip an d Im m ig ra tio n Se rv ic es , C h ild Sta t us Pro t ec t i on A ct, http ://w w w .u scis. g ov /po rtal/site/uscis/ m e nu i t e m . e b1 d4 c 2 a3e5b9ac89 2 4 3 c 6 a 7 5 4 3 f 6 d1 a / ? vg ne x t oi d= 1f 0c0a5 6 5 9 0 8 3 2 1 0 Vgn VCM 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 2 c a 6 0 a RCRD&vg ne x tc han ne l=1 f0c0a 56 59 08 32 10 V g nV C M 10 00 00 08 2 ca6 0a R C R D ( last v isit ed J uly 20, 2011)
. The si te goes on to rem ind partie s thatthe y m ay be el i gibl e i fthe y “ had n otr ec ei ved a fina l dec i s i on on an app li cat ion f or pe rm anent r es idence .
. . prior to Aug ust 6, 2002. ” Id. W hi l e s t at em en t s onthe USCI S’ s webs i t e ar e not disposi ti ve, the f actthatthe USC IS r ead the s tat u te in a w ay thati s in t ensi on w ith the gov ernm ent’ s rea d in g s ugg es ts that the section is ind eed am b igu ou s. A nti ci pati ng thi s a m bi gui ty, the gov er nm ent ur ges us to apply Che vron d efer en ce t o the Bo ar d’ s no npr ec ede nt i ali nt er pr et ati o n o fthe e ffec ti ve da te s ec ti o n. I f Che vron de fe r e nc e a pp l i e d, i t wo ul d r e qu i r e us to adopt t h e Boar d’s i nter preta ti on o fthe sta tute unle ss its co n st ru c ti o n w as u n re as on ab le. See Che vron , 467 U
. S. a t 8 4 2

- 4 3 , 8 4 5
. W e no t e , ho we v e r, that Che vron defe re nce i s no t tr i g g er ed i n a l l c as es . “ Eve n whe n we ar e ta l k i ng about i nter preta ti ons of sta tutes [ l i ke the I N A ] , notev er ythi n g th at an agencypro du ces i s e nti tl ed to the str onge st for m o fdefer ence. ” Jo seph v. Ho lder, 5 7 9 F
. 3 d 8 2 7, 8 3 1 ( 7 th C ir. 2009). Th e S up r e me Co ur tc l a r i fi e d Che vron ’ s r ea ch i n U nited St at e s v. M e ad Corp. , 5 33 U. S
. 2 18 ( 20 01 )
. In M e ad, the Court w as task ed w i th d ete rm i ni ng the l eve l o fdefer ence12 N o. 10

- 2986

o we d t o l e t t e r s i s s u e d b y t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s C u s t o ms Service. T he l etters

— w h ich in st ru c te d p ar tie s o n th eir ta r i ffc l as si fi ca ti o ns

— w er e bind i ng o nl y o n the partyat i ss ue , wer e no t s ubj ec t to no ti ce a nd c o m m en t, a nd c ou ld be m od ified larg ely w ith ou t n ot ice
. Id. a t 2 23. T he C ou rt hel d th at “ad m inistrative i m p lem en tation of a p articu lar statu t ory prov isi on q ua li fi es for Che vron de ference w hen i t app ear s that Congr ess del ega ted autho ri ty to the agencyge nera l l y t o m ake r ule s ca rr yi ng the f or ce o f la w , and that the age nc y i nt erp retation claim ing d eferen c e w as p ro m u lga te d in th e ex er c ise of t h a t a u th or ity .” Id
. at22 6- 27. Because the l ett er s di d not h av e the for ce of law , Che vron d efe re n c e d id n otap p ly. Id. at23 1- 32. O ur tas k, in l ight of M e ad, i s t o de te rm i ne wh at procl am at ion s b y t h e B o a r d c a r r y t h e fo rc e o f law , as o n ly thos e pr ocl am ati ons ar e e n ti tl ed to Che vron defe re nce. D ec isio n s by a th re e-m em b er p an el of th e B oa rd ob vio u sly car rythe f or ce o fl aw , as the Boar d’s re gul ati ons m ake cl ea r tha t th o se de ci si o ns ha ve prec ed en ti alv alue a nd ar e bind i ng o n the Board wh en i t deci des future case s. See 8 C .F.R . § 10 0 3 .1 (e)(6 ); Jos eph , 57 9 F
. 3d at 832. S i mi l a r l y, n o n - p r e c e d e n t i a l B o a r d d e c i s i o n s th a tth e msel ves re l y on appli cabl e Boar d precedent w oul d al so c ar ry th e fo rc e o f law , as t h e n on -p re c ed e n t i a l d isp os iti o n i s me r e l y a pp l y i ngr e a s o ningtha ta l r e a dyc a r r i es prece denti alweight. See La gu na s-Sa lga do v. Ho lder, 58 4 F.3d 707, 711 (7th C ir. 2009); A li v. M uk a sey, 52 1 F
. 3d 737, 739 (7th C ir. 2008). T he qu estion rem ains w he th er non -p reced en tial B oard o pi ni o ns tha t do no t r ely o n b i ndi ngBo ar d pr ec ede nt are d eserving of Che vron de fer en ce . Re l y i ngo n M e ad , a llN o. 10

- 2986 13

o fo urs i st erc i r cui ts to a ddr es s th e i ss ue ha ve c o nclude d the se no n- pr ec ede nt i alo pi ni o ns

— whi chb y the Board’ s r egul ati ons do not car rythe f or ce ofl aw

— ar e no t an alyzed un d er Che vron . R o tim i v. G o nz a les , 473 F. 3d 55, 57

- 5 8 (2 d C ir. 20 07 ) (p er cu ria m ); G a rcia -Q uin tero v . Go nz a les , 45 5 F .3d 1 0 0 6 , 1 01 3-1 4 (9 th C ir. 20 06 ); C a rpio v. Ho lder, 59 2 F .3d 10 91 , 109 7 ( 1 0 t h C ir. 20 10 ); Q uinchia v. U
. S. A tt ’y Gen
. , 55 2 F
. 3d 1255 , 1 25 8 ( 11th Cir
. 20 08)
. A nother ci rcuit d od ge d the quest i on but gave us a peekati ts hand , a peek that sim il ar l y s w i ngs a gainst Che vron d eferen c e fo r n on -p re c ed en tia l o p in ion s. D eLe on- O ch oa v . At t ’y Ge n . o

f U
. S. , 6 22 F
. 3d 34 1, 3 50

- 51 ( 3d Ci r . 2 01 0)
. The re m ai ni ng ci rcui ts have du cked the questi on e nti rely. V a squez v. Ho lder, 635 F.3d 563 , 567 n.6 (1st Cir. 20 11 ); C erva nte s v . Ho lder, 59 7 F
. 3d 229, 23 3 n. 5 ( 4th C ir. 20 10 ); M ush ta q v. Ho lder, 583 F.3d 8 7 5, 877 (5th Cir. 20 09 ); Ja pa rku lo va v. Ho lder, 615 F.3d 696 , 700-01 (6th C ir. 20 10 ); Godi nez-Arroyo v. M ukasey, 5 40 F. 3d 848, 85 0- 51 (8th C ir. 2008). O ut of allof th e circuits t o a d d r e s s the qu estion, w e are th e o nl y o ne t o g o the o th erway . In G u tn ik, w e d eterm i ne d tha t the se s tr ea m l i ne d, no n- pr ec ede nt i alo pi ni o ns ar e g i ve n Che vron defer ence so l ong as the B oar d provi des u s w ith so m e r e a s o n i n g t o re vie w . G utn ikv. G o nz a les , 46 9 F
. 3d 68 3, 6 90 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 6)
. In do i ngs o , we r el i ed o n the S uprem e Cou r t’ s g en er als ta te m en t i n A gu irre-A gu irre th a t “ ‘[j]ud icia l d efe re n c e t o th e E x ec u tiv e B ra n c h is especi al l y a pp ro pri ate i n the i m m i gr ati on co ntext. ’ ” Id. ( q uot i ng IN S v . Ag uirre-A gu irre, 526 U
. S. 415, 4 1 6 ( 1999 ))
. Bu t M e adcam e after A gu irre-A gu irre, a nd i t m ade cl ear that the s i neq ua non of Ch e v r on d efe rence i s a n age ncy14 N o. 10

- 2986

T his o p i n ion ha s be en circu lated am on g all jud g es of this 2 co u rt i n r eg u la r a ct iv e se rv ic e p u rs u a n t to C ir cu it R u le 40 (e). N o j udge f avor ed a r eh ea ri ng en banconthe que s t i on of o v er ru lin g th e r el ev a n t p a rt o f G u tni k v. G on zale s . st at em en t c ar ry in g t h e fo rc e o f law
. M e ad, 533 U.S
. at22 6- 27. I t i s f o r tha tr e a s o n tha twe h a v e e xp r e s s e d d o ubts about G utnik’s v ita lity
. See, e . g. , C hen v. H o l der, 60 7 F
. 3d 5 1 1 , 514 (7th C ir. 2010); G ha ni v . Ho lder, 5 5 7 F
. 3 d 8 36, 84 0 (7t h C ir. 20 09 ); Jos eph , 579 F.3d at83 3. T od ay w e h old th at n on -p re c ed en tia l B oa rd d ec i sio n s t h at d o n otrely onb i nd i ngBo a r d p r e c e de nta r e n o ta ff o r de d Che vr on defe re nce. To the exte nt that G utniki s i nc o ns i st en t wi th thi s , i ti s o v e r r ul e d. 2 J ust be c au se Che vron defe re nce does notapplydoes not m ean that w e ow e no d eferenc e to the B oard ’s int erp re ta tio n . Sk idm o redefer ence still appli es to l ess f or m al st at em en ts b y an ag en c y, s e eM e ad, 53 3 U. S
. a t 23 4- 35 , a nd n on -p re c ed en tia l op in i on s b y th e B oa rd ce rt ain ly fa ll w ith inth at g r ou p , see C arpio , 59 2 F
. 3d at 1098
. U nd er Sk idm o redefer ence, the Board’ s int er preta ti on is “ ‘ enti tl ed to re spect’

—but o nl y to the e xtent that [ i t has the] ‘ pow er to persuade. ’ ” Bail ey v . Pr egis Inno vat i vePackagi ng, Inc. , 60 0 F.3d 748 , 751 (7th C ir . 2 010) ( q uot i ng C hris te nse n v. Harris Cnty. , 52 9 U.S
. 57 6, 58 7 ( 2000 ) ). To ass ess the persuas i ve po wero fthe Bo ar d’ s dec i si o n, we ex ami ne “the tho r o ug hness evi dent i n i ts con sid er ati on, the val i dity o fi ts re asoni ng, i t s c o ns i s t e nc y wi th e a r l i e r a nd l a t e r p r o no unce m en ts, an d allthose f acto rs w hich gi ve it pow er to persuade, i fl acking pow er to co ntro l
. ” Skidm ore v. Sw if t & Co. , 323 U
. S. 134, 140 (1944 ).N o. 10

- 2986 15 W e ca nnot s ay that the Boa rd’ s inter preta ti on o fsubsect i on ( 1) , wh i c h le d it to hol d that Nino fel l o utsi de of th e C SPA ’s cov e r a ge, is persu asive. For one, the B oard ’s consi derat i on i s f arfro m tho ro ugh

— i ts effecti ve date an aly si s o cc upi ed al l o fa pa r ag r apho ftho ug ht
. The Board m ade no eff or t t o consi der ho w i ts i nter preta ti on of subsect i on ( 1) har m oni zed ( orf ai l ed to har m oni ze) wi ththe o th ere ffec ti ve da te s ubs ec ti o ns . M o r eo ve r, the Boa rd d id not a dd re ss the l egi sl ati ve hi sto ryo fsubse cti o n ( 1) o r the t en si o n b etwee n the B o ar d’ s r ea di nga nd the f act that the C SP A was m eant to be a n am el i or ati ve sta tute, apply i ng to as m any par ti es as pract i cabl e. These ar e p ro p er inq u iries th at th e B oa rd ign or ed
. The Bo ar d’ s an aly si s al so f ai l s to a ddr es s r ea so ni ng i t empl o y ed i n a pr i o r, pr ec ede nt i alo pi ni o n. In Avil aP erez , the Board was ta ske d w i th dete rm ini ng wh ether the CSPA appli ed to a peti ti onerwh o had been the der i vati ve benefi ci ar y o fa peti ti on f orcl ass i fi cati on, but had not fi led an a ppl i ca ti o n fo r a dj us tmento fs ta tu s be f o r e th e st at u te w as en ac te d
. In re A vil a -P erez , 24 I
. & N
. Dec. at 80. That quest i on r equi red t h e B oar d to explo re subse ction (1 ) , a s ubs ec ti o n i t dee m ed ambi guo us . In a na l y zing th e effec t ive dat e section ’s l egislati ve h istory, the B oard det er m i ne d tha t su bs ec ti o n ( 1) was “ i nt en ded to e xpa nd th e c o v er ag e o f th e s ta tu te be yo n d th os e in d ivid u als w hose vi sa peti ti ons and app l i cati ons w er e pendingo n th e d at e o f th e C SP A to als o p ro t e c t t h o se ind ivid u als w hose vi sa peti ti ons w er e a pp ro ved befor e the effecti ve da t e , b ut o n l y if their ap pli ca tio ns h a d n o t alrea dy been fina llyad

jud ica ted
. ” Id. a t 85 (em p ha sis add ed ). Th is observa ti o n c l as he s wi ththe Bo ar d’ s co nc l us i o n h er e, a nd the Board m ade no eff or t t o add re ss the inconsi ste ncy.16 N o. 10

- 2986 The Board’ s o pini on s uffer s fro m ano ther, r el ate d probl em : it i gnor es dir ectly r el evantl egi sl ati ve hi sto ry . Because s ubsect i on ( 1) i s a m bi guous, i ts l egi sl ati ve h ist or y s er ve s a s a va lid int er p re ti ve to ol. See Khan , 54 8 F. 3d at 556- 57. That hi sto ry re counts the pu rpose o f w h at is now sub sect ion (1) , a n d i t cut s against the B oard ’s re as on in g. O rig in ally , th e C SP A w as to ap p ly to a ll be n eficiaries ofvisa petitions, w he th er the p etitions w ere f i l ed be for e o r aft er th e C SP A ’s e n ac tm en t. See Pa d a s h v
. INS , 35 8 F
. 3d 11 61 , 11 71

- 72 ( 9th Ci r . 20 04) (r ec o unt i ng the hi sto ryo fsubse cti on ( 1)). T h e Depart m ent o fJ usti ce express ed dis com f or t w ith such w i de-r eachi ng r etr oacti vi ty. I t no ted thatun lim i ted r etr oac ti vi ty w oul d fo rce i t t o re open cases a s ol d as 1 952, i m posi ng r eco rds pr obl em s a nd c r e a t i nga dmi ni s t r a t i v e b a c k l o g . H. R. R e p. N o . 1 0 7-4 5, 6-7(20 01 ), r epr i nt e d i n 2002 U
. S. C.C. A
. N
. 64 0, 644, 2001 W L 4 0 6 244. Th e end result w as su bsec tion (1), w hich w as seem ingly d esigned to so lve the D ep artm en t’s c on c er n s ov er rev ivin g c as es lon g d isp os ed of. See P a da sh , 35 8 F .3d at11 72 ; A vil a - P erez , 24 I
. & N
. De c. at 85. N ino’s read ing of th e s u b sect ion satisfi es th e D ep artm en t’s concern w i thout re m oving a l ar ge seg m ent ofi ntended ben efi ciaries from the A ct’s c o verage . Th e B oard ’s re ading, however, would go to o f ar

— th er e sh o ul d b e no r ec ords he ada ch e f o r matt er s st i l l pe ndi ngb efo r e th e Dep ar tm ent when the CSPA bec am e e ffecti ve. I t is for allof th ese reason s tha t w e find the B oard ’s re adingo fsubse cti on ( 1) unp er suasi ve. M or e to the point, w e a re co nvi nced that N i no’ s r eadi ng i s co rr ect: su b se c tio n (1) in c lu d es all be n efic ia rie s o f p re vio u sly appr o ve d v i sa pet i ti o ns e xc epttho se wi tha ppl i ca ti o ns adj udi ca te d pr i o r t o t he CS PA’ s en ac tment . Thi s r ea di ngN o. 10

- 2986 17 i s m o r e co ns i st en t wi ththe le g i sl at i ve hi st o r y o fthe CSPA , har m oni zes with the “l ongs tandi ng princi ple o f const rui ng anyl i nger i ng am bi gui ti es i n deporta ti on sta tutes i n f avo r ofthe al i en, ” IN S v. Ca rdoza- Fonseca , 48 0 U
. S. 42 1, 44 9 ( 1987 ) , and m eshes with the Boar d’s ear l i er in te rp re ta ti o n o fs u b se c tio n (1), see Av ila -P erez , 2 4 I
. & N. Dec
. a t 85
. F i na l l y, this r ea di ngs at i sfi es the De par tment o fJ u s t i c e ’ s c o n c e r n s o v e r a d mi n i s t r a t i v e b a c k l o g . ( We ar e co nfi dent thatth e D ep ar tm ent wil l be thri l l ed that it go t w h at it as ke d of C on gr es s.) Apply i ngs ubs ec ti o n ( 1) , we co nc l ude tha t th e CS PA appli es to N i no: herm othe r’ s cl ass ifi cati on peti ti on was approved p rio r to the CSPA ’ s e nactm ent, and nei thero f N i no’ s a dj ustm ent a pp l i cati ons w er e decided pri orto th e C SP A ’s e n ac tm en t. W h eth er th e C SP A w ill he lp N i no t o a tt ain pe r m an en t r es i den cyi s anothe r que st i o n, one tha t wi l l de pe nd o n the a c t ua l t e xt o f the Act ’ s s ubs t a nt i v e s e c t i o ns . T ha ti s s ue h a s n o ty e tbeen fu l l y a ddr e s s e d, a nd we a c c o r di ng l y l e a v e i tt o the p r o pe r a dmi ni s t r a t i v e b o dyo n r e man d.

III. C ON CLU SI ON Forthe f or ego i ng r eas ons, we G RANT the pe t i t i o n f or re vie w , V ACATE the Bo a r d’ s de c i s i o n, a nd R EMA ND th e ca se f o r fur th erpr o ce eding s co ns i st en t wi ththi s o pi ni o n.

7- 27- 11