[PUBLIS H] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 15 67 5

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D. C. Dock etNo. 1 :1 1- cv -2 12 62 -PCH CAMILA MAR IA SILVA-HERNANDEZ, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t,
ve rs us US BUREAU OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES, MIAM I FLORIDA, US ATTORNEY GENERAL, etal., Defen da nt s- App el le es .

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e So uthe rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (No ve m be r 13 , 20 12 ) Befo re MAR CUS an d B LACK, Circ ui t Jud ge s, an d EVANS, Dis tri ctJu dg e. * PER CURI AM:
Honora ble Orinda

Evans, United States District Judge f or the Nor

thern District of * Geor g ia, sitting by

designation. Case: 11-15675 Date Filed: 11/13/2012 Page: 1 of 28Thi s ap pe al pre se nt s an is su e o f st atut ory in te rp ret at io n a ris in g fr om th e Cuba n Ad jus tm en t Actof 1 96 6 (C AA), Pub . L. No. 89 -7 32 , 80 Sta t. 1 16 1 (rep ro du cedas ahi st or ic al no te to 8 U.S.C. § 12 55 ). Cam il a Si lv a-Hernand ez co nt en ds th atth e p at te rnan d p ract ic e d el in eat edin Sect io n 2 3.1 1( m)(2 ) of th e Uni te d S ta te s C it iz en sh ip an d Immig rat io n S erv ic es (Imm ig rat io n S erv ic e) Adju di cat or ’s Fie ldMan ua l v io la te s t he pl ai n a ndun am bi gu ou s l an gu ag e o f th e CAA. Sect io n 2 3.1 1( m)(2 ) di ct at es th atth e la wfu l p erm an en t re si de ntst atus of a
no n- Cuba n s po us e can no t p red at e th e d at e o f th e n on -Cuba n s po us e’s m arri ag e to a Cuba n n at io na l. Aft er re vi ewin g t he st atut ory lan gu ag e, we co nc lu de th e Im m ig rat io n S erv ic e’s pa tt ern an d p ract ic e o f li m it in g t he da te of l awfu l pe rm an en t re si de nc e b as edonth e d at e o f m arri ag e is co nt rary to t he un am bi gu ou s la ng ua ge of t he CAA. I. BACKGROUND The rel ev an t fa ct s ar e u nd is pu te d. Si lv a-Herna nd ez i s a n at iv e an d c it iz en of Braz il . On Dece m

be r 20 , 20 01 , Sil va -Hern an de z was adm it te d t o the Uni te d St at es as aB-2 no ni m

m ig ran t v is it orforpl eas ur e, an d o ve rs ta y edhe r vi sa . On Aug us t 2 7, 2 01 0, s he m arri edEdu ard o Herna nd ez, a n at iv e an d c it iz enof C ub a who ha d a dju st edhi s s ta tu s t o l awfu l p erm an en t re si de ntun de r th e CAA, an d h as be ena pe rm an en t re si de ntsi nc e Apr il 9, 2 00 0.
2 Case: 11-15675 Date Filed: 11/13/2012 Page: 2 of 28On Oct ob er 5 , 20 10 , Sil va -Hern an de z fi le d a n app li cat io n fo r ad jus tm en t o f st atus un de r th e CAA b as edon he r m arri ag e to Hern an de z. On Fe bruary 10 , 20 11 , th e Imm ig rat io n S erv ic e ap pr ov edSil va -Hern an de z’s ap pl ic at io n. In ap pr ov in g he r ap pl ic at io n, t he Im

m ig rat io n S erv ic e rec or de d h er l awfu l p erm an en t re si de nt st atus as o f Aug us t 2 7, 2 01 0, t he da te of h er m arri ag e, as pro vi de d i n t he Im m ig rat io n S erv ic e Adju di cat or ’s Fie ldMan ua l. Si lv a-Herna nd ez fi le d aCo m pl ai ntag ai ns t t he Im

m ig rat io n S erv ic e 1
se ek in g (1 ) anord er d ecl ari ng th atth e Imm ig rat io n S erv ic e’s le ga l p os it io n a nd pr act ic e reg ard in g t he rol lb ackda te forno n- Cuba n s po us es an d c hi ld ren vi ol at es th e p la in an d u na m

bi gu ou s l an gu ag e o f Sec ti on 1 o f th e CAA an d i s an erro r of la w, as wel l as arb it rary andcap ric io us ; (2 ) anord er d ecl ari ng th atth e Im m ig rat io n S erv ic e’s refu sa l t o c reat e a rec or d o f Si lv a-Herna nd ez’s ad m is si on fo r pe rm an en t re si de nc e as of ada te th irt y m on th s p rio r to th e fi li ng of h er ad jus tm en t ap pl ic at io n o r th e d at e o f he r la starri va l i nt o t he Uni te d S ta te s (wh ic he ve r da te is lat er) i s an erro r of law, an d a rb it rary andcap ric io us ; (3 ) an
or de r in th e fo rm

of awritof m an da m

us co m pe ll in g t he Im

m ig rat io n S erv ic e to

Silva-Herna

ndez’s Complaint was brought ag ainst the U.S. Bur eau of Citi zenship and 1 Immigration Services, Miami, Florida ; U.S. Attorney Gene ral; Secr etar

y for the D epar

tment of Homeland Sec urity ; U.S. Ci tiz enship and Immigration Services; and National Be nefits Center, U.S. Cit izenship and Immigration Services. F or ea se of r efe renc e, we ref er to the Immigration Service as the opposingparty throughout the opinion.

3 Case: 11-15675 Date Filed: 11/13/2012 Page: 3 of 28crea te nu nc pr o t un c a reco rdof S il va -Hern an de z’s adm is si on forpe rm an en t

res id en ce as of Ap ril 5, 2 00 8 (i .e., th e d at e th irty m on th s p rio r to th e fi li ng of h er ad jus tm en t ap pl ic at io n) an d i m m ed ia te ly iss ue he r a n ew/c orrect edPerm an en t Res id en t Cardin di cat in g a“ Res id en t Si nc e” d at e o f Apr il 5, 2 00 8; an d (4 ) an
or de r gr an ti ng anin

jun ct io n b arri ng th e Imm ig rat io n S erv ic e fro m ap pl y in g the

“ ru le ” o r “po li cy ” d el in eat edin Sect io n 2 3.1 1( m)(2 ) of th e Imm ig rat io n S erv ic e’s Adju di cat or ’s Fie ldMan ua l re ga rd in g t he rol lb ackpro vi si on s fo r no n- Cuba n sp ou se s an d c hi ldren . The pa rti es fil edco m

pe ti ng m ot io ns forsu m

m ary jud gm en t. In gra nt in g t he Im m ig rat io n S erv ic e’s m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t an d d en y in g S il va Hern an de z’s m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t, the di st ric t co urt fo un d t ha t Se ct io n 1 of th e CAA was am

bi gu ou s re gard in g wh ethe r a n on -Cuba n s po us e is en ti tl edto a

“ ro ll ba ckda te ” p rio r to th e d at e o f th e qua li fy in g m arri ag e. The d is tri ctco urt
co nc lu de d t he CAA do es no t co nt ai n e xp li ci t l an gu ag e st at in g tha t n on -Cuba n sp ou se s ar e en ti tl edto be ne fit s ar is in g p rio r to th e d at e o f th e qua li fy in g m arri ag e. Fu rth er, the di stric t co urt fo un d the st atut e p res up po se s t he ex is te nc e o f a m ari ta l rel at io ns hi p. Si lv a-Herna ndezv. Sw ac in a , 82 7 F . Sup p. 2 d 1 35 2, 1 35 7 (S .D. Fla. 20 11 ).

4

Case: 11-15675 Date Filed: 11/13/2012 Page: 4 of 28The di stric t co urt t he n turne d t o t he leg is la ti ve hi st ory of t he CAA to de te rm in e Co ng res s’s i nt en t, an d fo un d t ha t “ a li te ral ap pl ic at io n o f th e CAA’s sp ou sa l an d ro ll ba ckpro vi si on s, . . . wou ldy ie ldres ul ts th atare ab su rdin li gh t o f th ei r le gi sl at iv e in te nt .” Id
. at 1 36 0. Th e co urt co nc lu de d S ect io n 2 3.1 1( m)(2 ) of th e Imm ig rat io n S erv ic e Adju di cat or ’s Fie ldMan ua l was ba se d o n ape rm is si bl e co ns tru ct io n o f th e st atut e, an d was anin te rp ret iv e ru le en ti tl edto jud ic ia l de fere nc e. Id
. at 1 36 1- 64
. On ap pe al , Sil va -Hern an de z as se rts Sect io n 1 of the CAA is no t am bi gu ou s. The st atut e st at es , inwhatis kn own as t he “ ro ll ba ckpro vi si on ,” th at“ [u ]pon ap pr ov al of s uc h a n app li cat io n fo r ad jus tm en t o f st atus , th e Att orne y Gene ral sh al l cr eat e a rec or d o f th e al ie n’s ad m is si on forpe rm an en t re si de nc e as of ada te th irt y m on th s p rio r to th e fi li ng of s uc h a n app li cat io n o r th e d at e o f hi s l as t arriv al in to th e Uni te d S ta te s, wh ic he ve r da te is lat er.” Pub. L. No. 8 9- 73 2, § 1, 8 0 S ta t. 11 61 , 11 61 (as am en de d) (rep ro du cedas ahi st or ic al no te to 8 U.S.C. § 12 55 ). The ve ry ne xtsen te nc e p ro vi de s: “ The pro vi si on s o f th is Act s ha ll be ap pl ic ab le to th e sp ou se an d c hi ldof a ny ali ende sc rib edin th is subs ect io n, re ga rd le ss of t he ir ci ti zen sh ip an d p la ce o f bi rth , who are re si di ng with s uc h a li enin th e Uni te d St at es . . . .” Id
. Sil va -Hern an de z as se rts ou r in qu iry sta rts an d s to ps with re ad in g th es e se nt en ces , as t he y

un am bi gu ou sl y st at e th atCo ng res s i nt en de d t he rol lb ack
5 Case: 11-15675 Date Filed: 11/13/2012 Page: 5 of 28pr ov is io n b e ap pl ie d t o s po us es an d c hi ld ren of C ub anna ti on al s, n o m atte r th ei r

na ti on al it y

or c it iz en sh ip . Thu s, the Im m ig rat io n S erv ic e’s pa tt ernan d p ract ic e o f li m it in g t he da te of l awfu l p erm an en t re si de ntst atus of ano n- Cuban s po us e b as ed
on th e d at e o f th e n on -Cuba n s po us e’s m arri ag e to th e Cuban n at io na l v io la te s t he pl ai n a ndun am

bi gu ou s l an gu ag e o f th e CAA. The Imm ig rat io n S erv ic e d oe s n otarg ue th atan y pa rti cu la r te rm

in th e st atut e is am

bi gu ou s o r ha s m

ul ti pl e m ean in gs . Rathe r, th e Imm ig rat io n S erv ic e 2 hi ng es it s ar gu m en t o n i ts ass ert io n t ha t the pl ai n m ean in g o f th e CAA y ie ld s ab su rdres ul ts . Spe ci fic al ly, th e Imm ig rat io n S erv ic e as se rts th atSil va Hern an de z’s in te rp ret at io n wo ul d a cco rda no n- Cuba n s po us e b en efi ts to whi ch th e n on -Cuba n s po us e is no t o th erwi se en ti tl ed —ro ll ba ckto a da te on whi ch th e no n- Cuba n s po us e was no t qua li fie d fo r ap pl ic at io n u nd er the CAA. Furt he r, acco rd in g t o t he Im

m ig rat io n S erv ic e, th e n on -Cuba n s po us e co ul d re cei ve an earl ie r ad jus tm en t d at e th anth e Cuba n a li enup onwho m th e n on -Cuba n s po us e’s ap pl ic at io n i s b as ed
.

In fac t, the Immigration Service de votes only two sentenc es in its brief to any argument 2 that the statute is ambiguous. The Immigration Service states that “Cong ressional intent is ambiguous as it relate s to whether de rivative non-Cuba n spouses areentitled to benef its backdated to befor e the date of the qua lifying ma rriag e.” It further

contends: “CAA Sec tion 1 does not contain e x plicit langua g e statingthat non-Cuban spouses a re e ntitled to benefits arising prior to the date of the qua lifying ma rriag e.” T his is the ex tent of the Immigration Service’s argument that the statute is ambiguous. 6

Case: 11-15675 Date Filed: 11/13/2012 Page: 6 of 28II. LANGUAGE OF STATUTE AND ADJUDICATOR’S FIELD MANUAL

Befo re we b eg inou r di sc us si on of t he is su e p res en te d, we m us t fi rs t s etou t th e rel ev an t l an gu ag e o f th e st atut e an d Ad jud ic at or ’s Fie ldMan ua l p ro vi si on . A. Th e Sta tu te Sect io n 1 of t he CAA pro vi de s, i n p ert in en t p art : Tha t, n ot wit hs ta nd in g t he pro vi si on s o f se ct io n 2 45 (c) o f th e Im m ig rat io n a ndNati on al it y Act, the st atus of a ny ali enwho is a na ti ve or c it iz enof C ub a an d wh o h as be enin sp ect edan d a dm it te d o r pa ro le d i nt o the Uni te d S ta te s s ub se qu en t t o J anua ry 1, 1 95 9 a ndha s be enph y si cal ly pres en t i n t he Uni te d S ta te s fo r atlea ston e y ear, m ay be ad jus te d b y th e Att orne y

Gene ral , inhi s d is cret io n a ndun de r su ch reg ul at io ns as h e m ay

pre sc rib e, to th atof a n a li enlawf ul ly adm it te d fo r pe rm an en t re si de nc e if th e al ie n m ak es anap pl ic at io n fo r su ch ad jus tm en t, an d the ali enis eli gi bl e to rece iv e anim m ig ran t v is a an d is adm is si bl e to th e Uni te d S ta te s fo r pe rm an en t re si de nc e. Upo n ap pr ov al of s uc h a n app li cat io n fo r ad jus tm en t o f st atus , th e Att orne y Gen eral sh al l cr eat e a rec or d o f th e al ie n’s ad m is si on forpe rm an en t res id en ce as of ada te th irt y m on th s p rio r to th e fi li ng of s uc h a n ap pl ic at io n o r th e d at e o f hi s l as t arriv al in to th e Uni te d S ta te s, whi ch ev er d at e is lat er. The pro vi si on s o f th is Act s ha ll be ap pl ic ab le to th e sp ou se an d c hi ldof a ny ali ende sc rib edin th is subs ect io n, reg ard le ss of t he ir c it iz en sh ip an d p la ce o f bi rth , who are re si di ng wit h s uc h a li enin th e Uni te d S ta te s, ex cep t t ha t s uc h s po us e o r ch il d who ha s b een ba tt eredor s ub jecte d t o e xt rem e cru el ty m ay ad jus t t o pe rm an en t re si de ntst atus un de r th is Act wi th ou t d em on st rat in g t ha t he or s he is res id in g wi th th e Cuba n s po us e o r pa ren t i n t he Uni te d St at es . Pub. L. No. 8 9- 73 2, § 1, 8 0 S ta t. 1 16 1, 1 16 1 (a s amend ed ) (rep ro du cedas a hi st or ic al no te to 8 U.S.C. § 12 55 ).

7

Case: 11-15675 Date Filed: 11/13/2012 Page: 7 of 28B. Immigra ti on Se rv ic e Adj ud ic at or ’s Field Ma nu al Se ct io n 2 3.1 1 Sect io n 2 3.1 1( m)(2 ) of

th e Imm ig rat io n S erv ic e Adju di cat or ’s Fie ldMan ua l pr ov id es : The no n- Cuba n s po us e an d c hi ldren of aqu al ifyin g C ub anap pl ic an t are e nt it le d t o t he same rol lb ackpro vi si on s as th e p rin ci pa l al ie n. Howev er, the ir r ol lb ackda te can no t p rece de th e d at e o f th e qua li fy in g m arri ag e. Altho ug h t hi s ru le ha s b een ad op te d a s a m at te r of po li cy , itha s n o b as is inst atut e o r reg ul at io n. Ra th er, i t i s an ap pl ic at io n o f th e g en eral pri nc ip le th ata be ne fitcan no t ac cru e to anali enbe fo re el ig ib il it y ex is ts . III. DISC USSION The is su e b efo re u s i s wh ethe r th e Imm ig rat io n S erv ic e’s pa tt ern an d pr act ic e, pr ov id edforinit s Ad jud ic at or ’s Fie ldMan ua l, o f li m it in g ano n- Cuba n sp ou se ’s “ ro ll ba ckda te ” to th e d at e o f m arri ag e, rat he r th anreco rd in g ada te th irt y
m on th s p rio r to th e n on -Cuba n s po us e’s fi li ng of t he ap pl ic at io n fo r ad jus tm en t o f st atus (orth e d at e o f th e n on -Cuba n s po us e’s arri va l i n t he Uni te d S ta te s, whi ch ev er i s l at er), v io la te s t he pl ai n l an gu ag e o f th e CAA. W e rev ie w de no vo th e d is tri ctco urt’s g ran t o f su m m ary jud gm en t o n t hi s i ss ue . Dur r v. S hi ns eki , 63 8 F.3 d 1 34 2, 1 34 6 (1 1t h C ir. 2 01 1) . W e al so “ rev ie w de no vo qu es ti on s o f st atut ory in te rp ret at io n.” Se rr an o v . U.S. Att ’y Gen
. , 65 5 F .3d12 60 , 12 64 (11 th Cir . 20 11 ).

8 Case: 11-15675 Date Filed: 11/13/2012 Page: 8 of 28A. Plai n Me an in g o f the St at ut e Whe n re vi ewin g a n a ge nc y ’s con st ru ct io n o f a s ta tu te whi ch itadm in is te rs , we fi rs t d et erm in e whe th er Co ng res s h as di rect ly spo ke n t o t he qu es ti on at i ss ue . Ch evr on , U.S.A., Inc. v . Nat ur al Res. Def . Cou nc il , Inc
. , 46 7 U.S. 8 37 , 84 2, 1 04 S. Ct . 27 78 , 27 81 (19 84 ). “ If the in te ntof C on gr es s i s cl ear, t ha t i s t he en d o f th e
m at te r; f orth e co urt, as well as t he ag en cy , m us t g iv e eff

ectto th e una m

bi gu ou sl y ex pr es se d i nt en t o f Co ng res s.” Id
. at84 2- 43
. Inord er t o d et erm in e whe th er the in te ntof C on gr es s i s cl ear, we m us t
em pl oy trad it io na l t oo ls of s ta tu to ry co ns tru ct io n. Se e id
. at84 3 n .9. “ As wi th an y qu es ti on of s ta tu to ry

in te rp ret at io n, we b eg in by exam in in g t he tex t o f th e st atut e to de te rm in e whe th er i ts m ean in g i s cl ear.” Har ryv. Mar ch an t , 29 1 F .3d76 7, 7 70 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 2) (enbanc ). Whe n we c on st ru e a s ta tu te , “ we m us t b eg in , andoft en sh ou lden d a s wel l, wi th th e la ng ua ge of t he st atut e it se lf.” Id
. (quo ta ti on s om it te d) . This is be cau se “ we pr es um e th atCo ng res s s ai d wh atitm ean t an d
m ean t wh atitsai d.” Id
. (quo ta ti on s o m it te d) . “ Tho se who askco urts to gi ve effe ctto pe rcei ve d l eg is la ti ve in te ntby int erp ret in g s ta tu to ry lan gu ag e co nt rary to it s p la in an d u na m

bi gu ou s m ean in g a re i n e ffec t as ki ng co urts to alt er tha t la ng ua ge , andco urts ha ve no au th or it y to alt er s ta tu to ry

lan gu ag e. . . . W e can no t ad d t o t he term s o f th e p ro vi si onwhatCo ng res s l eftou t.” CBS Inc . v. Pri meti me 9 Case: 11-15675 Date Filed: 11/13/2012 Page: 9 of 2824 Jo in t Ven tu re , 24 5 F .3d12 17 , 12 28 (11 th Cir . 20 01 ) (quo ta ti on s an d a lt erat io ns

om it te d)
. Thi s ca se tu rn s o n t he in te rp ret at io n o f th e fi rs t t hr ee s en te nc es of S ect io n 1 of th e CAA. W e wil l an al y ze ea ch sen te nc e in turn , andas t he y rel at e to on e
an ot he r, to de te rm in e whe th er the m ean in g o f th e st atut e is pl ai n a nd
un am bi gu ou s. The fir stsen te nc e st at es : Tha t, n ot wit hs ta nd in g t he pro vi si on s o f se ct io n 2 45 (c) o f th e Im m ig rat io n a ndNati on al it y Act, the st atus of a ny ali enwho is a na ti ve or c it iz enof C ub a an d wh o h as be enin sp ect edan d a dm it te d o r pa ro le d i nt o the Uni te d S ta te s s ub se qu en t t o J anua ry 1, 1 95 9 a ndha s be enph y si cal ly pres en t i n t he Uni te d S ta te s fo r atlea ston e y ear, m ay be ad jus te d b y th e Att orne y

Gene ral , inhi s d is cret io n a ndun de r su ch reg ul at io ns as h e m ay

pre sc rib e, to th atof a n a li enlawf ul ly adm it te d fo r pe rm an en t re si de nc e if th e al ie n m ak es anap pl ic at io n fo r su ch ad jus tm en t, an d the ali enis eli gi bl e to rece iv e anim m ig ran t v is a an d is adm is si bl e to th e Uni te d S ta te s fo r pe rm an en t re si de nc e. The lan gu ag e o f th is sen te nc e is no t am bi gu ou s. Th e Att orne y

Gene ral ha s di sc ret io n t o a dju stth e st atus of a ny ali enwho is a na ti ve or c it iz enof C ub a who ha s b eenin sp ect edan d a dm it te d o r pa ro le d i nt o t he Uni te d S ta te s af te r Ja nu ary 1, 19 59 , andha s b een pre se ntin th e Uni te d S ta te s fo r atlea ston e y ear, i f th e al ie n ap pl ie s fo r ad

jus tm en t an d

th e al ie n i s el ig ib le to rece iv e animm ig ran t v is a an d is adm is si bl e to th e Uni te d S ta te s fo r pe rm an en t re si de nc e.

10 Case: 11-15675 Date Filed: 11/13/2012 Page: 10 of 28The ne xtsen te nc e, th e “ ro ll ba ckpro vi si on ,” st at es :

Upo n app ro va l o f su ch anap pl ic at io n fo r ad jus tm en t o f st atus , th e Att orne y Gene ral sh al l cr eat e a rec or d o f th e al ie n’s ad m is si on for pe rm an en t re si de nc e as of ada te th irt y m on th s p rio r to th e fi li ng of su ch anap pl ic at io n o r th e d at e o f hi s l as t arriv al in to th e Uni te d St at es , whi ch ev er d at e is lat er. Aga in , th e la ng ua ge of t hi s s en te nc e is no t am bi gu ou s. Up on th e Att orne y Gen eral ’s dec is io n t o e xe rci se di sc ret io n t o a dju stth e n at iv e o r ci ti zen of C ub a’s st atus to th atof alawf

ul pe rm an en t re si de nt , th e Att orne y Gene ral sh al l

crea te a reco rdof t he ali en ’s adm is si on as o f a d at e th irt y m on th s p rio r to th e fi li ng of t he ap pl ic at io n, o r th e d at e o f hi s l as t arriv al in to th e Uni te d S ta te s, wh ic he ve r is lat er. Fi na ll y , th e la stsen te nc e st at es : The pro vi si on s o f th is Act s ha ll be ap pl ic ab le to th e sp ou se an d c hi ld of an y ali ende sc rib edin th is subs ect io n, re gard le ss of the ir ci ti zen sh ip an d p la ce o f bi rth , who are re si di ng with s uc h a li enin th e Uni te d S ta te s, ex cep t t ha t s uc h s po us e o r ch il d wh o h as be enba tt ered orsubjec te d t o e xt rem e cru el ty m ay ad jus t t o p erm an en t re si de nt st atus un de r th is Act wi th ou t d em on st rat in g t ha t h e o r sh e is res id in g wit h t he Cuba n s po us e o r pa ren t i n the Uni te d S ta te s. Thi s s en te nc e is als o n otam bi gu ou s. Th e p ro vi si on s o f th e CAA sh al l be ap pl ic ab le to th e sp ou se an d c hi ldof any ali ende sc rib edinth is subs ect io n. Th e al ie n d es cri be d i n t hi s s ub se ct io n i s t he on e who was u na m bi gu ou sl y de sc rib edin th e fi rs t s en te nc e. Thu s, i f y ouare m arri edto , or ach il d o f, th e al ie n d es cri be d i n th e fi rs t s en te nc e, an d youare re si di ng in th e Uni te d S ta te s wi th th e al ie n 11 Case: 11-15675 Date Filed: 11/13/2012 Page: 11 of 28de sc rib edin th e fi rs t s en te nc e, se e Gon za le z v. McN ar y , 98 0 F .2d14 18 , 14 20 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 3) , th e CAA sh al l be ap pl ic ab le to y ou , reg ard le ss of you r ci ti zen sh ip or p la ce o f bi rth . Andon e o f th e p ro vi si on s o f th e CAA th atsh al l ap pl y is th e ro ll ba ckpro vi si on . This is cle ar fro m th e la ng ua ge an d s tru ctur e o f th e st atut e. The t hi rdsen te nc e o f Sec ti on 1 m ak es th e “ pr ov is io ns ” o f th e CAA ap pl ic ab le to no n- Cuba n s po us es an d c hi ld ren . The ro ll ba ckpro vi si on , whi ch ap pe ars in th e imm ed ia te ly prece di ng sen te nc e o f Sec ti on 1, i s cl earl y a pr ov is io n of th e CAA. The un am

bi gu ou s l an gu ag e o f Sec ti on1 o f th e CAA supp orts th ata no nCuba n s po us e o f a Cuba n wh os e st atus ha s b eenad jus te d u nd er the CAA sh ou ld ha ve a reco rd edda te of l awfu l p erm an en t re si de nc e o f th irty m on th s p rio r to th e ap pl ic at io n d at e o r th e d at e o f th e n on -Cuban s po us e’s la starri va l i nt o t he Uni te d St at es , whi ch ev er d at e is lat er. Im po rta nt ly, th e st atut e co nt ai ns no lan gu ag e st at in g t he no n- Cuba n m

us t b e m arri edto th e Cuba n a s o f th e n on -Cuba n’s
ro ll ba ckda te , no r do es itst at e th e Cuba n a ndno n- Cuba n s po us e m us t en te r th e Uni te d S ta te s s im

ul ta ne ou sl y . “ W e can no t ad d t o t he term s o f th e p ro vi si on what Co ng res s l eftou t.” CBS , 24 5 F .3dat 1 22 8 (q uo ta ti on s an d a lt erat io n o m it te d)
.

“ Whe re the lan gu ag e o f a s ta tu te is un am bi gu ou s, as itis he re, we n eedno t,
an d o ug htno t, co ns id er l eg is la ti ve hi st ory .” Har ry , 29 1 F .3dat 7 72 . “ The ‘ pl ai n’
12 Case: 11-15675 Date Filed: 11/13/2012 Page: 12 of 28in ‘ pl ai n m ean in g’ requi res th atwe lo okto th e actua l l an gu ag e u se d i n ast atut e,

no t t o t he cir cu m st an ces th atgave ris e to th atlan gu ag e.” CBS , 24 5 F .3dat 1 22 4. Ourde ci si on s “ m an da t[e ] th atam bi gu it y in st atut ory

lan gu ag e b e sh own be

fo re a co urt d el ve s i nt o l eg is la ti ve hi st ory .” Id
. Thu s, b ecau se we co nc lu de th e st atut e is cl ear, t he pa rti es ’ arg um en ts reg ard in g t he leg is la ti ve hi st ory of t he CAA are n ot rel ev an t t o o urpl ai n m ean in g a na lysis , andwe wil l n otad dr es s t he m he re. B. Absu rd

Resu lt Thi s C ou rt’s o ne reco gn iz edex cep ti onto th e p la in m ean in g ru le is ab su rd it y of res ul ts . CBS , 24 5 F .3d at12 28 . W e h av e o bs erv ed , “ [t]ho ug h v en erab le , th e pr in ci pl e is rare ly app li ed , bec au se th e res ul t p ro du cedby the pl ai n m ean in g c an on
m us t b e trul y

ab su rdbe fo re thi s p rin ci pl e trum ps it . Oth erwi se , cle arl y

ex pr es se d le gi sl at iv e d eci si on s wo ul d b e subjec t t o t he po li cy pre di le ct io ns of ju dg es .” Merri tt v. Dil la rd

Pap er Co
. , 12 0 F .3d11 81 , 11 88 (11 th Cir . 19 97 ). “ [I]t is irr el ev an t t ha t we m ay

no t h av e m ad e th e sa m e p ol ic y de ci si onha d t he m at te r be en ou rs to de ci de if we c an no t s ay th atitis ab su rd , rid ic ul ou s, o r lu di cro us for Co ng res s t o h av e d eci de d t he m at te r in th e way th e p la in m ean in g o f th e st atut ory la ng ua ge in di cat es itdi d.” CBS , 24 5 F .3dat 1 22 8 (q uo ta ti on s an d a lt erat io ns om it te d)
.

13

Case: 11-15675 Date Filed: 11/13/2012 Page: 13 of 28The Im m ig rat io n S erv ic e at te m

pt s t o s ho w th e ab su rd it y of t he pl ai n
m ean in g o f th e CAA in two way s. Fi rs t, i t p oi nt s t o t he CAA’ s l eg is la ti ve hi st ory ;
an d s eco nd , itpre se nt s v ari ou s h y po th et ic al sce na rio s re su lt in g fr om th e p la in
m ean in g i n wh ic h i t co nt en ds th e th eo ret ic al ou tc om es wou ldbe ab su rd
. The Im m ig rat io n S erv ic e rel ie s o n t he leg is la ti ve hi st ory in di cat in g tha t t he sp ou sa l p ro vi si on was a dd edto pro m ot e “ fam il y un it y ” to sh ow ab su rdres ul ts .

3 Se e Gon za le

z , 98 0 F .2dat 1 42 1 (“ The pu rp os e o f th e [CAA’s] pro vi si on pe rm it ti ng a sp ou se an d c hi ldof aCuba n a li ento ob ta in pe rm an en t re si de nc e is to pr om ot e fam il y

un it y .”). The l eg is la ti ve hi st ory is si le nt , ho wev er, o n t he is su e o f th e as si gn m en t o f a ro ll ba ckda te fora no n- Cuba n s po us e who m arri es a Cuba n
na ti on al aft er the Cuba n n at io na l i s g iv enpe rm an en t re si de ntst atus . Desp it e th is si le nc e, th e art ic ul at edleg is la ti ve in te ntof f am il y un it y is furth eredby giv in g t he earl ie r ro ll ba ckda te to a no n- Cuba n s po us e, as th e n on -Cuba n s po us e co ul d g eta

See H.R. Rep. No. 89-1978, at 5-9 (1966), r eprinted in 1966 U.S.C.C.A.N. 3792, 3796- 3 99 (August 4, 1966, letter of Deputy Att’y Gen. Ramsey

Clark) (sug g estingthe CAA’s spousal provision was included “ [i ]n order to maintain the unity of the fa mily . . . to provide for

the adjustment of status there under of the spouse and c hildren of the Cuba n who is the principle benef iciary of this bill, reg ardle ss of their nationality and nativity , if they

areliving with him in the United States”) ; Adjustment of Status for Cuban Refug ees: He aringon H.R. 15182, H.R. 15183, H.R. 16908, H.R. 10808, and H.R. 13393 Be fore Subcomm. No. 1 of the H. Comm. on the J udiciary , 89th Cong., 36, 40 (1966) (“I think the Congre ss took a very strongposition i n the law last year

as to reunitingfamilies.” ( statement of Nic holas deB . Katzenbac h, Att’y Gen. of the United States)), ( “I

think that this proposition to reunite families is in a humane dir ection.” (statement of

Rep. Peter W. Rodino, J r., Member , Subcomm. No. 1 of the H. Comm. on the J udiciary )). 14 Case: 11-15675 Date Filed: 11/13/2012 Page: 14 of 28jum

p s ta rt o n h is or h er p ath t o n atur al iz at io n. No t o nl y is th e p la in m ean in g o f th e st atut e n otab su rd , itarg uabl y furth ers th e le gi sl at iv e in te ntof f am il y un ity . The Im m ig rat io n S erv ic e p res en ts sev eral hypo th et ic al sce na rio s i n wh ic h a
no n- Cuba n s po us e is gi ve n “ gr eat er” b en efi ts th anth e Cuban n at io na l i n o rd er t o sh ow t he pl ai n m ean in g o f th e st atut e co ul d yiel d abs ur d re su lt s. Th e ex am pl es in vo lv e th e n on -Cuba n s po us e rec ei vi ng anearl ie r ro ll ba ckda te th anth e Cuba n
na ti on al , anda no n- Cuba n s po us e rec ei vi ng a ro ll ba ck da te pre ced in g the Cuba n’s pr es en ce i n t he Uni te d S ta te s, p ot en ti al ly to a d at e whe n t he Cuba n n at io na l was
m arri edto so m eo ne els e. The Immig rat io n S erv ic e arg ue s “ [t]he se ou tc om es , res ul ti ng fro m

a ‘lit eral read in g’ of the CAA, wou ldbe ab su rdbe cau se th e n on Cuba n s po us e wou ldbe rece iv in g b en efi ts of the CAA to whi ch th e Cuba n s po us e wou ldno t b e acc or de d.” Furth er, the li te ral in te rp ret at io n “ wou ldgi ve no cred en ce t o t he st atut ory

in te ntof ‘fam il y

un it y ’ be cau se no n- Cuba n s po us es wou ldbe pro vi de d re tro act iv e b en efi ts be fo re a ‘fam il y ’ ev er ex is te d.” W e are no t co nv in cedth e Imm ig rat io n S erv ic e’s hypo th et ic al sce na rio s de m on st rat e ab su rdres ul ts , as t he “ ro ll ba ckpro vi si on ” in th e CAA is a sp eci al be ne fitcarv edou t fo r Cuba n n at io na ls . Con gr es s g av e Cuba ns th is sp eci al be ne fit , andgi vi ng a no n- Cuba n s po us e (n o m at te r th e d at e o f m arri ag e) the same be ne fitis no m or e ab su rdth angi vi ng Cuba ns th is sp eci al be ne fit . If Co ng res s 15 Case: 11-15675 Date Filed: 11/13/2012 Page: 15 of 28carv edou t t hi s p ro vi si on forCuba n n at io na ls , th ere i s n o re as on why Co ng res s

can no t t reatth e sp ou se of aCuba n n at io na l t he same way . Even if apa rti cu la r ap pl ic at io n o f th e ro ll ba ck form ul a m ay lea d t o a n a rg uabl y

an om al ou s re su lt (s uc h a s g ran ti ng pe rm an en t re si de ntst atus to a no n- Cuba n app li can t as of a n earl ie r da te th anth e Cuba n s po us e), we can no t s ay th atCo ng res s co ul d n otha ve in te nd edto ap pl y

a un ifo rm

rol lb ackform

ul a to all ap pl ic an ts , Cub anan d n on Cuba n a li ke . Ind eed , th ere i s n ot hi ng ab su rdab ou t u si ng a si ng le rol lb ackform ul a fo r al l CAA ap pl ic an ts , if o nl y for gre at er ea se of a dm in is tra ti on . Inli gh t o f ou r “ ex act in g s ta nd ard ” fo r fi nd in g abs ur di ty, we co nc lu de th e Im m ig rat io n S erv ic e h as no t s ho wn t ha t t he pl ai n m ean in g o f Sec ti on 1 o f th e CAA wou ldy ie ld“ th e type o f trul y ab su rdor l ud ic ro us res ul ts whi chwou ld pe rm itus to de pa rt f

ro m th e p la in m ean in g o f th e st atut e.” Se e CBS , 24 5 F .3dat 12 28 -2 9.

16

Case: 11-15675 Date Filed: 11/13/2012 Page: 16 of 28IV. CONCLUSION

As we co nc lu de th atth e la ng ua ge of t he st atut e is no t am bi gu ou s an d d oe s no t yieldab su rdres ul ts , we hav e an swe redth e n eces sa ry Ch evr on qu es ti on , 4 whe th er Co ng res s h as di rect ly spo ke n t o the pre ci se qu es ti on at i ss ue , inth e affi rm at iv e. The Immig rat io n S erv ic e Adju di cat or ’s Fie ldMan ua l p ro vi si on pr ov id in g t ha t a n on -Cuban s po us e’s ro ll ba ckda te can no t p rece de th e d at e o f th e qu al ifyin g m arri ag e is co nt rary to t he un am bi gu ou sl y ex pr es se d i nt en t o f Co ng res s. Th us , we rev ers e th e d is tri ctco urt an d re m an d fo r furth er p ro ceed in gs co ns is te ntwith t hi s o pi ni on . REVERSED AND REMANDED.

Be cause we c onclude the sta tute is not ambiguous and the ag ency ’s construc tion is 4 contra ry to Congre ss’s intent, we nee d not addre ss the parties’ arg uments reg ardingthe ty

pe of defe renc e af

forde d to the Immigration Service’s inter pretation of the statute. See Che vron , 467 U.S. at 843, 104 S. Ct . 2782. 17

Case: 11-15675 Date Filed: 11/13/2012 Page: 17 of 28EVANS, Dist ric t J ud ge , di ss en ti ng :

I res pe ct fu ll y

di ss en t. I co nc lu de th ata pe rs on in App el la nt 's p os it io n (a
no n- Cuba n i m

m ig ran t m arri edin 20 10 to a Cuba n i m m ig ran t wh o h adob ta in edan ad jus tm en t t o re si de ntali enst atus in 20 00 ) is no t en ti tl edto th e b en efi t o f th e un ique rol lb ackpro vi si on in Sect io n 1 of the Cuba n R efu ge e Adju st m en t Actof 19 66 (“ CAA”). Thi s ro ll ba ckpro vi si on en ti tl es anap pl ic an t fo r ad jus tm en t t o 1 pe rm an en t re si de ntst atus to have th e ad jus tm en t re co rd edas o f a d at e th irt y (30 )
m on th s p rio r to th e ap pl ic at io n fo r ad jus tm en t o f st atus . Becau se a pe rs on in pe rm an en t re si de ntst atus m us t re si de in th e Uni te d S ta te s fo r fi ve (5) y ears pri or to ap pl y in g fo r na tu ral iz at io n, 8 U.S.C. § 1 42 7( a), the rol lb ackgi ve s t he su cces sf ul ap pl ic an t a t hi rty (30 ) m on thhe adst artto wardeli gi bi li ty for n atur al iz at io n. The st atut e o n i ts face de m on st rat es App el la ntSil va -Hern an de z d oe s n ot fal l wi th inth e cl as s o f pe rs on s i nt en de d t o b e b en efi tt ed . She was n otMr. Hern an de z's sp ou se when he ap pl ie d fo r ad jus tm en t o f st atus to pe rm an en t
res id en t al ie n i n 2 00 0. Sh e b ecame his sp ou se in 20 10 . Sect io n 1 of t he CAA pr ov id es as f

ol lo ws: Tha t, no twi th st an di ng t h e p ro vi si on s of se ct io n 24 5( c) of th e Im m ig rat io n an d Nati on al it y Act, th e st atus of an y al ie n who is a na ti ve Even though the title of the Ac t sugg ests application to re fug ees in 1966, the te x t of the 1 statute makes c lear

its provisions continue through toda y . 18 Case: 11-15675 Date Filed: 11/13/2012 Page: 18 of 28or ci ti zen of Cuba an d who ha s be en in sp ect ed an d adm it te d or pa ro le d

in to th e Uni te d St at es subs eque nt to Ja nu ary 1, 19 59 an d ha s be en ph y si cal ly pr es en t in th e Uni te d St at es fo r at le as t on e y ear, may be ad jus te d by th e Att orne y Gen eral , in hi s d i sc ret io n an d un de r su ch reg ul at io ns as he m ay pr es cri be , to th at of an al ie n la wfu ll y adm it te d fo r p erm an en t res id en ce if th e al ie n m ak es an ap pl ic at io n fo r su ch ad jus tm en t, an d th e al ie n is el ig ib le to rece iv e an imm ig ran t vi sa an d is adm is si bl e to th e Uni te d St at es fo r pe rm an en t res id en ce. Upo n ap pr ov al of su ch an ap pl i c at io n fo r ad jus tm en t of st atus , th e Att orne y Gen eral sh al l crea te a reco rd of th e al ie n's adm is si on fo r pe rm an en t res id en ce as of a da te th irt y m on th s pr io r to th e fil in g of su ch an ap pl i c a t i o n o r th e da te of hi s la st arri va l in to th e Uni te d St at es , wh i c h e ve r da te is la te r. The pr ov is io ns of th is Act sh al l be ap pl ic ab le to th e sp ou se an d ch il d of an y al ie n de sc ri be d in th is su bs ect io n , reg ard le ss of th ei r ci ti zen sh ip an d pl ace of bi rth , who are res i di ng wit h su ch al ie n in th e Uni te d St at es , ex cep t t ha t s uc h s po us e o r ch il d who ha s b een ba tt eredor s ub jecte d t o ex tre m e cru el ty m ay ad

jus t to pe rm an en t resi de nt st atus un de r th is Act wit ho ut de m on st rat in g th at he or sh e is res id in g wit h th e Cuba n sp ou se orpa ren t i n t he Uni te d S ta te s. Pub. L. No. 8 9- 73 2, § 1, 8 0 S ta t. 1 16 1, 1 16 1 (a s amend ed ) (rep ro du cedas a hi st or ic al no te to 8 U.S.C. § 12 55 ) (em ph as is ad de d)
. I rea d s ect io n 1 as d es cri bi ng a si tu at io n i n wh ic h t he Cuba n- bo rnsp ou se is
en ti tl edto a reco rdof a dm is si on to pe rm an en t re si de nc e as of ada te th irt y (30 )
m on th s p rio r to th e fi li ng of h is las t ap pl ic at io n, o r th e d at e o f hi s l as t arriv al in to th e Uni te d S ta te s, wh ic he ve r da te is lat er. His sp ou se is en ti tl edto th e sa m e 2
ro ll ba ck , eve n t ho ug h s he is no t o f Cuba n b irt h. Th e n on -Cuba n s po us e is

For simpli city

of discussion, it is assumed the husband is the Cuban-born spouse , 2 although the statute make s no such distinction. 19

Case: 11-15675 Date Filed: 11/13/2012 Page: 19 of 28de sc rib edin th e st atut e in rel at io n t o h er h us ba nd , th e Cuba n s po us e. Thi s

rel at io na l as pe ctof t he st atut e is m ad e cl ear i n t he pa rt wh ic h s ay s " [t]he pr ov is io ns of t hi s Actsh al l b e ap pl ic ab le to th e sp ou se . . . of an y ali ende sc rib ed in th is subs ect io n . . . ." The al ie n " de sc rib edin th is subs ect io n" is th e 3 Cuba n- bo rnsp ou se who is ap pl y in g fo r pe rm an en t re si de ntst atus , alo ng with h is wife
. Inm

y op in io n, t he m ajor it y

op in io n i gn or es th es e k ey word s i n i ts an al y si s. The m ajor it y

co nc ed es th e fi rs t s en te nc e o f se ct io n 1 --wh ic h d es cri be s the qu al ifi edna ti ve or c it iz enof C ub a ap pl y in g fo r st atus ad jus tm en t-- is "u na m bi gu ou s." The m ajor it y

furth er rec og ni zes th at"the ali en'de sc rib edin th is
subs ect io n' i s t he on e who was u na m bi gu ou sl y de sc rib edin th e fi rs t s en te nc e." Whe re I thi nkth e m ajor it y 's a na lysis fal te rs is in it s fa il ur e to reco gn iz e th atth e fir stsen te nc e o f se ct io n 1 de sc rib es a Cuba n- bo rnali enwho is eli gi bl e to ap pl y for
anad jus tm en t t o p erm an en t re si de ntst atus . The st atut e as su m es th e co up le is m arri edan d t ha t t he y are m ov in g t hr ou gh th e imm ig rat io n p ro ces s t og ethe r. Mr. Hern an de z ap pl ie d fo r an d re cei ve d h is ad jus tm en t o f st atus un de r th e CAA in 20 00 . He was u nm arri edat t he ti m e o f hi s ap pl ic at io n a ndat t he ti m e o f hi s ad jus tm en t t o p erm an en t re si de ntst atus . By th e
Iwill refe r to this as the “fa mily provision.” 3 20 Case: 11-15675 Date Filed: 11/13/2012 Page: 20 of 28ti m e App el la ntSil va -Hern an de z m arri edMr. Hern an de z in 20 10 he was a lre ady a pe rm an en t re si de nt . There fo re, s he ha s n ev er b een th e sp ou se of a n “ al ie n de sc rib edin th is subs ect io n,” be cau se th e “ al ie n d es cri be d i n [s ect io n 1 ], ” is an al ie n wh o h as no t yet ha d h is st atus ad jus te d. In m

y op in io n, t he n, s he can no t b e
anin te nd edbe ne fic ia ry

of the CAA. Becau se Sil va -Hern an de z d idno t qua li fy for th e th irt y (30 ) m on th rol lb ackin th e CAA, th ere was no im pe di m en t t o the Im m ig rat io n S erv ic e's grant in g h er ad jus tm en t o f st atus to pe rm an en t re si de nt al ie n o nl y ba ckto th e d at e o f he r m arri ag e to Mr. Hern an de z, in acco rd an ce wi th
se ct io n 2 3.1 1( m)(2 ) of

th e Imm ig rat io n S erv ic e Adju di cat or 's Fi el d M anua l. Mo reo ve r, ev enif t he st atut e is am bi gu ou s, the leg is la ti ve hi st ory of the CAA cle arl y

sh ows Co ng res s i nt en de d t he sp eci al rol lb ackpro vi si on be acco rd ed
on ly to i m

m ig ran ts fro m

Cubaan d t he ir s po us es at t he ti m e o f imm ig rat io n. Th e le gi sl at iv e h is to ry

is rep le te with d is cu ss io n abo utth e p li gh t o f Cuban re fu ge es in th e Uni te d S ta te s i n 1 96 6. The o ve rarc hi ng pu rp os e o f th e CAA, rep eat edoft en 4 in th e le gi sl at iv e h is to ry , was t o a ll ow Cuba n re fu ge es to ap pl y forpe rm an en t

SeeH.R. Rep. No. 89-1978, reprinted in 1966 U.S.C.C.A.N. 3792; S . Rep. No. 89-1675 4 (1966); Conf. Rep. No 89- 2334 (1966); 112 Cong . Rec. 27962 (1966) ; 112 Cong. Rec . 28605 (1966); To Adjust the Im migration Status of Cuban Refugees in the U.S.: Hearing on S. 1241 and S. 3712 Before the Subc omm. on Im migration and Nat uralizati on of the Comm
. on the Judiciary , 89th Cong. 1-57 ( 1966); Adjustment of Status f or Cuban Refugees: Hearings on H.R. 15182, H.R. 15183, H.R. 16908, H.R . 10808 and H.R. 13393 BeforeSubcomm. No. 1 of the H. Comm. on the Judiciary , 89th Cong. 1-73 ( 1966). 21

Case: 11-15675 Date Filed: 11/13/2012 Page: 21 of 28res id en cy

st atus witho utha vi ng to lea ve th e Uni te d S ta te s. Th e la w as i t s to odin 19 66 was t ha t al ie ns fro m co un tri es in th e Weste rnHem is ph ere c ou ldno t ap pl y fo r ad jus tm en t o f st atus fro m

withi n t he Uni te d S ta te s. Adj us tmen t o f Sta tu s f or Cu ba n Ref

ug ees : Hea ri ng

s o n H.R. 15 18 2, H.R. 15 18 3, H.R. 16 90 8, H.R. 10 80 8
an d H.R. 13 39 3 Bef

or e S ub co mm. No. 1 of

th e H. Comm. o n the Ju di ci ar y , 89 th Co ng . 30 (19 66 ) (s ta te m en t o f Nic ho la s d eB. Kat zenba ch , Att ’y Gen. o f th e Uni te d St at es ). They were requi red , just ifi edby Con gr es s o n the ba si s o f pr ox im it y an d
co nc ern s ab ou t fr au d, t o l eav e th e Uni te d S ta te s an d app ly for an im m ig rat io n v is a fro m a U.S. Con su la te in an ot he r co un try. Id
. Form os t i m m ig ran ts , th is m ean t si m pl y returni ng to th ei r ho m e co un try. Id
. Howev er, aft er the Uni te d S ta te s se ve reddi pl om at ic rel at io ns with C ub a in 19 61 an d c lo se d i ts co ns ul at e th ere, t hi s op ti on was n otav ai labl e to Cuba ns li vi ng inth e Uni te d S ta te s. Id
. It was po ss ib le fo r Cuba ns to go to an ot he r co un try, e.g., Can ad a o r Mex ic o, b utth e tr av el was co m pl ic at ed , exp en si ve , and“un reas on ab ly bur de ns om e” o n the refu ge es . 11 2 Co ng . Rec. 2 86 05 , 28 60 7 (1 96 6) . In ad di ti on , th e in flu x o f ap pl ic an ts to th es e ne arb y co ns ul at es was o ve rwh el m in g t ho se off ic es , res ul ti ng in si gn ifi can t li m it at io ns onth e types an d n um be r of Cuba n app li cat io ns th ey

wou ldacce pt . The leg is la ti ve hi st ory

furth er d et ai ls th e si gn ifi can t d is adva nt ag es , bo th to in di vi du al Cuba ns as we ll as t o t he Uni te d S ta te s’ eco no m y , of n otpe rm it ti ng 22 Case: 11-15675 Date Filed: 11/13/2012 Page: 22 of 28Cuba n re fu ge es to ob ta in pe rm an en t re si de ntst atus . Thes e in cl ud edin ab il it y to fin d s uf fic ie ntem pl oym en t, i nabi li ty to l eav e th e Uni te d S ta te s t o c on si de r res et tl em en t i n o th er co un tri es be cau se re-e nt ry ba ckto th e Uni te d S ta te s was no t
as su red , in ab il it y

to su cces sf

ul ly dis pe rs e Cuba ns th ro ug ho utth e co un try becaus e of li m it edem

pl oym en t o pt io ns , andin ab il it y to pu rs ue cert ai n e du cat io na l op po rtu ni ti es . It i s i n thi s co nt ex t Co ng res s p as se d t he CAA--a n arro w law
ex em pt in g qua li fy in g C ub an s fr om cert ai n i m

m ig rat io n ru le s an d p erm it ti ng th em to ap pl y forad jus tm en t o f st atus fro m

withi n the Uni te d S ta te s. Thi s C ou rt h as pre vi ou sl y ackno wled ge d C on gr es s ad de d t he fam il y pr ov is io n o utof c on cernfor“ fam il y un it y .” Gon za les v. McN ar y , 98 0 F .2d14 18 , 14 21 (11 th Cir . 19 93 ). The fa m il y pro vi si on was a dd edaft er Dep uty Att orne y Gen eral Ram se y

Cla rkpo in te d o utth ere wer e li ke ly a nu m be r of cas es wher e a

“ ci ti zen of C ub a mayha ve ma rr ie d an d h av e h is sp ou se an d c hi ld ren li vi ng with hi m in th e Uni te d S ta te s.” H.R. Re p. No . 89 -1 97 8, re pr in te d i n 19 66 U.S.C.C.A.N. 37 92 , 37 99 (em ph as is ad de d) . In o rd er t o “ mai nt ai n th e u ni ty of th e fam il y ,” Dep uty

Att orne y Gene ral Cla rkreco m

m en de d l an gu ag e, whi ch Co ng res s in cl ud edve rb at im , m ak in g the sp ou se an d c hi ld ren of aqu al ifi edCuba n app li can t el ig ib le un de r th e CAA’s ad jus tm en t an d ro ll ba ckpro vi si on s, ev enth ou gh th ey
m ig htbe no n- Cuba n t he m se lv es . Id
. (em ph as is ad de d)
. 23 Case: 11-15675 Date Filed: 11/13/2012 Page: 23 of 28Bo th of De pu ty Att orne y Gene ral Cla rk ’s st at em en ts su gg es t a m arri ag e o r fam il y alr eady inex is te nc e. He us edth e p hr as e “ m ay have m arri ed .” Thi s i s i n th e p as t t en se ; h e is co nc ern edab ou t ad jus tm en t ap pl ic an ts who are al read y
m arri edor wh o a lre ady

ha ve ch il dr enwhen th ey ap pl y . He exp la in s n ex t t ha t
so m e o f th es e fam il y

m em be rs m ig htno t b e Cuba n the m se lv es an d t he refo re were no t el ig ib le forad

jus tm en t u nd er the bi ll as wri tt en . In t he ve ry ne xtsen te nc e, Dep uty Att orne y Gene ral Clarksu gg es ts ch an ge s i n o rd er t o “ m ai nt ai n” th e u ni ty of th is fam il y . “ Mai nt ai n” is de fin edas “ to ke ep in anex is ti ng st at e.” W E B S T E R ’ S N E W C O LLE G IA T E D IC T IO N A R Y 68 7 (1 97 9) . Theref or e, “ m ai nt ai ni ng ” a fam il y ne ces sa ril y

pre supp os es italr eady

ex is ts . His s pe ci fic us e o f “ m ai nt ai n,” to ge th er wi th th e ex pr es s co nc ern ab ou t Cuba ns who “ m ay ha ve m arri ed ,” is
co m pe ll in g e vi de nc e Co ng res s i nt en de d t he pro vi si on s o f th e CAA wou ldon ly ap pl y to a no n- Cuba n s po us e who was a lre ady m arri edat t he ti m e o f th e Cuba n’s ap pl ic at io n fo r ad

jus tm en t. Giv enth e ex te ns iv el y

do cu m en te d c on cern s ab ou t the cu m be rs om e an d
ex pe ns iv e tr av el requi rem en ts im po se d b y th e ex is ti ng law o n C ub anrefu ge es , as well as t he adm in is tra ti ve bu rd en s as so ci at edwith p ro ces si ng hu nd red s o f th ou sa nd s o f Cuban re fu ge es , th e le gi sl at iv e p ur po se an d h is to ry

co nf irms a read in g t ha t t he fam il y

pro vi si onwas o nl y

ev er i nt en de d t o c ov er the Cuba n’s t he n 24 Case: 11-15675 Date Filed: 11/13/2012 Page: 24 of 28ex is ti ng sp ou se an d fa m il y . The family pro vi si on stream li ne d t he en ti re fa m il y ’s imm ig rat io n app li cat io n a ndpro ces si ng . Rath er tha n re qu iri ng th e Cuba n s po us e to ap pl y foran d re cei ve pe rm an en t s ta tu s, an d t he n s ub se qu en tl y requi rin g h is sp ou se an d c hi ld ren to ap pl y as t he clo se rel at iv e o f anali enwith p erm an en t
res id en ce s ta tu s, Co ng res s ch os e to pe rm ithi s v ery imm ed ia te fam il y to m ov e th ro ug h t he imm ig rat io n p ro ces s wi th hi m , andun de r th e sa m e ad jus tm en t ru le s as ap pl ie d t o h im . This gro up pro ces si ng serve d b ot h t o “ m ai nt ai n t he un ity of t he fam il y ,” as well as t o p ro m ot e Co ng res s’ exp res se d d es ire to rel ie ve th e adm in is tra ti ve bu rd encau se d b y th e in flu x o f th es e ref

ug ees . Perm it ti ng a la te r m arri edsp ou se to ap pl y for ad jus tm en t u nd er the CAA-- te n years a fte r th e Cuba n h im se lf h as m ov edth ro ug h t he im m ig rat io n p ro ces s an d ha s s et tl edin th e Uni te d S ta te s- -fu rth ers ne ithe r of th es e co ng res si on al pu rp os es . It i s o f no ad di ti on al adm in is tra ti ve effi ci en cy to pro ces s t he no n- Cuba n s po us e’s ap pl ic at io n fo r ad

jus tm en t t eny ears lat er u nd er the CAA as o pp os edto un de r an y ot he r ap pl ic ab le st atus ad jus tm en t p ro vi si on s. Itals o s tra in s co m m on sen se to arg ue ap pl y in g t he CAA to App el la ntSil va -Hern an de z “ m ai nt ai ns ” an y sen se of fam il y un it y . The fam il y

pro vi si on was a dd ed , wordforword , as re qu es te d b y Dep uty Att orne y Gene ral Clark . His e xp li ci t re as onforad di ng th e fam il y pr ov is io n was co nc ernfor Cubans who m ig htalr eady be m arri edan d h av e 25 Case: 11-15675 Date Filed: 11/13/2012 Page: 25 of 28ch il dr en , andto pro vi de fora m ech an is m to m ov e th e en ti re, ex is ti ng , fam il y th ro ug h o ne st atus ad

jus tm en t p ro ces s. Ap pl y in g t he pro vi si on s o f th e CAA to App el la ntSil va -Hern an de z, te n years l at er, d oe s n otserve th e cl ear c on gr es si on al in te ntbe hi ndth e fam il y

pro vi si on . Fu rth erm or e, othe r co ng res si on al tes ti m on y co nf irms a read in g t ha t t he fu tu re s po us e o f anun m arri edCuba n wh o h as alr eady be enad jus te d t o p erm an en t
res id en t s ta tu s i s n otanin te nd edbe ne fic ia ry of t he Act b ecau se sh e is no t, an d
was no t ev er, the sp ou se “ of an y ali ende sc rib edin th is subs ect io n.” Afterth e Hou se ad de d t he fam il y

pro vi si on to it s v ers io n o f th e b il l, As si st an t Se cret ary fo r In te r-Am eri can Affai rs , Lin co lnGord on , adv oc at edth e Sen at e al so “ co ns id er the in cl us io n o f su ch pe rs on s—th atis di rectfam il y rel at iv es of

th e p er so ns di re ct ly af fe ct ed by the leg is la ti on .” To Adj us t the Immigra ti on St at us of Cu ba n Ref

ug ees in th e U.S.: Hea ri ng

on S. 1 24 1 a nd

S. 3 71 2 Bef

or e th e S ub co mm. on Immigra ti on
an d N at ur al iz at io n o

f the Co mm . on th e Ju di ci ar y , 89 th Co ng . 21 (19 66 ) (em ph as is ad de d) . The Se na te co m m it te e rep ort re le as edaft er the pro vi si on was ad de d e xp la in edth e fam il y pro vi si on “ am en d[ ed ] se ct io n 2 45 (c) [o f th e 1 96 5 Im m ig rat io n Act ] to m ak e el ig ib le forad jus tm en t o f st atus a na ti ve or c it iz enof Cubaan d h is sp ou se an d c hi ld ren , who ha ve en te redth e Uni te d S ta te s an d h av e
no t o th erwise ac qu ir ed

th e st at us of

pe rma ne nt

res iden ce. ” S. Rep . No. 8 9- 16 75 , 26 Case: 11-15675 Date Filed: 11/13/2012 Page: 26 of 28at6 (1 96 6) (em ph as is ad de d) . In n ei th er the st atut ory tex t n orth e le gi sl at iv e hi st ory is th e n on -Cuba n s po us e ev er i de nt ifi edsep arat el y fro m he r Cuba n s po us e. At al l t im es , th e ap pl ic ab il it y of the CAA to th e n on -Cuba n s po us e is in di rect rel at io n t o t he “pr in ci pa l b en efi ci ary” of th e la w: the Cuba n s po us e el ig ib le for
an d app lying forad

jus tm en t. Alt ho ug h t he law cl earl y en vi si on s a n on -Cuba n sp ou se as abe ne fic ia ry

of t he law, s he is a de riv at iv e b en efi ci ary on ly to t he ex te nt of he r rel at io ns hi p wi th th e p rin ci pa l, Cuba n, b en efi ci ary. Sin ce the CAA was
on ly app li cab le to Mr. Hern an de z b efo re h e rec ei ve d h is pe rm an en t re si de nc y st atus , andbe cau se App el la ntSil va -Hern an de z was no t h is sp ou se at t ha t t im e, th ere i s n o d eri va ti ve be ne fitfor he r to cla im

ten y ears lat er. Bec au se th e te xtof t he st atut e una m bi gu ou sl y ap pl ie s t he pro vi si on s o f th e Act o nl y to th e sp ou se of t he Cuba n re fu ge e "d es cri be d i n [S ect io n 1 ], " b ecau se th e Cuba n re fu ge e "d es cri be d i n [S ect io n 1 ]" is un am bi gu ou sl y anali en pr oc eed in g t hr ou gh th e imm ig rat io n p ro ces s, an d b ecau se itis un di sp ut ed App el la ntSil va -Hern an de z was no t M r. Hern an de z’s sp ou se un ti l af te r he was al read y a pe rm an en t re si de nt , I co nc lu de sh e is no t en ti tl edto th e b en efi t o f th e ro ll ba ckpro vi si on . Furt he r, ev enif t he st atut e were u nc le ar o n i ts face , th e le gi sl at iv e h is to ry

in di cat es th e fam il y

pro vi si on was a dd edto “ m ai nt ai n” fam il y un it y du rin g t he im

m ig rat io n p ro ces s, an d n ev er t o s erv e as a m ech an is m fora 27 Case: 11-15675 Date Filed: 11/13/2012 Page: 27 of 28la te r-m arri edsp ou se to m ov e th ro ug h h er o wn, i nd ep en de ntimm ig rat io n p ro ces s.

Fo r th es e rea so ns , I res pe ct fu ll y di ss en t.

28 Case: 11-15675 Date Filed: 11/13/2012 Page: 28 of 28