## In the



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

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 12
- 3008 M AHV AS H A KRAM, 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 .

Pe tition fo r Review o f anOrd er of the B o ard of Immigration App eals
. No . A 096 769 035
A RGUED A PRI L 1, 2013

— D ECI DE D J UL Y 9, 2013

Befo re B AUER, K ANN E , a nd T INDER, C ircu it Judges . K ANN E , Circ ui tJudg e . The I m m i gr ati on a nd N ati onal i ty Act( “ I NA”) , P ub
. L. 8 2
- 4 1 4 , 6 6 S t a t . 1 6 3 , a s a men de d, 8 U .S. C. § 1 101 et seq . , i s a b i to fa b e a s t . I ti s n o tkn o wn f o rb eingwar m o rc uddl y ; wor ds l i k e “int r i ca te ” an d
“ By z a nt i ne ” c o me mor e r e a di l y t o mi nd
. Z eqiri v. M uk a sey, 529 F. 3d 3 64, 37 0 ( 7th Ci r. 20 08)
. N ori s i t know n f or being ea sy to und er sta nd ; we have o ften r em ar ked o n i ts2 N o. 12
- 3008 fien d ish co m p lex ity
. Se e, e . g. , O ’Sullivan v. U SC IS , 45 3 F.3 d 80 9, 81 2 (7 th C ir. 20 06 ); M uhur v. Ashcroft, 38 2 F
. 3d 65 3, 65 6 (7th C ir. 20 04 ); A s a n iv . INS , 15 4 F
. 3d 719, 72 7 ( 7th Cir
. 19 98)
. But eve n the I N A has ro om for ahum an touc h: i t ha s the po t e nt i a l t o b r i ng f a mi l i e s t o g e ther to s h a r e i nth e A me r i c a nd r e a m. Thi s ca se demons tr at es b o ththe I N A’s t an g l ed co nstructi on and i ts tender hear t. M ahvash A l i sha A kr am cam e t o thi s co untry i n 200 6. S he hoped to join her r ec en tly r emar r i ed m o th era nd b ec o m e a l awful per m an en t r es i den t. Herho pes wer e das he d whens he ra n headl ong i nto a reg ula tory wal l
. S he now argues th a tth e r e g u l a t i o nth a tth wa r t e d h e rc a n n o ts t a nd
. B ec au se w e f i n d th atth e re gu lat ion atiss u e d ire c tly confl i cts w i th the wil lo fCongr ess , we agr ee w i th A kr am a n d g r a n th e rp e t i t i o nf o rr e v i e w.

I. B ACK GR OUN D The I N A gi ves speci ali m m i gr at ion pr efer ences to alie n s w ith rela tiv es in t h e U n ite d Sta te s. Se e, e . g. , 8 U. S
. C. §§ 11 5 1-1 15 4. T h es e p re fer en c es allow alien s t o rej oin thei r f am i l i es i n the U ni ted St ate s by m aking th em elig ible fo r p er m an en t im m igr an t v isa s. U n for tu n at ely , i t so m et im es ta ke s m on th s o r ye ar s fo r p e r m a n e n t im m igr an t v isa s t o b e p ro c es s e d
. Se e, e . g. , U
. S. Dep’t ofS tat e, B u re au of C on su lar A ffair s, Family- b as e d Im m igrantVi s as , h tt p ://tr av el.s ta te .gov /v isa/i m m i gr ants/ types/ types_ 1306
. htm l( l astvi si ted J uly1, 20 13) ; U
. S. Dep’t ofS tat e, B u re au of C on su lar A ffair s, Im m igrantVi s a f ora Spo use ofN o. 12
- 3008 3
a U
. S. Ci t ize n (IR1 orCR1) , h t t p: // t r a v e l
. s t a t e . g o v /v i sa/ i m m i gr ants/types/types_2991
. htm l( l astvi si ted Jul y 1 , 2013 )
. That delay m eans that peopl e a pp l yi ng forvi sas to j oin th eir fam ilies in t h e U n ite d Sta t e s g en er ally m ust s pend l ong peri ods wait i ng outs i dethe U ni ted S t a t e s f o rthe i rv i s a a pp l i c a t i o ns t o b e p r o c e s s e d. T his w ait can be pa rticularly hard on p eop le w ho are separ ate d fr om thei r spouses and chi l dren. Congr ess r e s po nd e d t o thi s pr o b l e m in t wo wa y s . Th e fi r s ti s 8 U. S
. C. § 1 10 1( a) ( 15) (K) , whi chg i ve s sh o r t- te r m , no nim m igrant visas to th e sp ou ses an d fiance (e )s o f U
. S. ci ti ze ns , a s wel la s to the c hi l dr eno ftho se s po us es a nd fi an ce ( e) s. I t is appa r en tly much f as te rt o i ss ue a no ni m m i g r an t vi satha n i t i s to i ssu e a pe r m an en t i m m i g r an t v i s a . A s h o r t - t e r m, no n - i mmi g r a n tv i s a th e r e f o r e a l l o ws ana l i ent o e nt erthe United Sta te s f as te rtha n s he w oul d other w i se be abl e. S ec ti o n 1 10 1( a) ( 15 ) ( K) make s ana l i ene l i g ibl e f o ra no ni m m i gr ant v i sa i fhe o r she: ( i ) i s the fi ancee or fi ance ofa ci ti zen o fthe U ni ted St ate s . . . and w ho s ee ks to enterthe U ni ted S ta te s so l ely to co nc l ude a va l i d m ar r i ag e wi ththe pet i ti o ne rwi th i n n i ne tyda y s afte ra dm i ss i o n; (ii ) has concl ud ed a v al i d m ar ri age with aci ti zen of th e U n i t e d S t at es . . . w h o is t h e p et itio n er, i s th e be ne fi ci ary o fa pe ti ti o n t o a cc o r d a s ta tu s und erse cti on 1 151(b) ( 2) ( A ) ( I ) o fthis ti tl e that was fi l ed unde rs ecti on 1 15 4 o fthi s ti tl e bythe peti ti oner, and see ks to entert h e U ni ted S tat es to4 N o. 12
- 3008
aw ait the approvalo fsuch peti ti on a nd the availabi l i ty to the a l i en o fan i m m i gr ant v i sa; o r (iii) is th e m in or ch ild of an alien d es c rib ed in cl au se ( i ) o r( i i ) and i s a cc o m pany i ng, orf o l l o wi ng to j oin, th e ali en [. ] Id. The se tem pora ry, non- i m m i gr ant v i sas ar e ca l l ed “K vis as .” T h er e a re fou r c at eg or ies :
• K -1: fian c e(e )s o f U n ite d Sta te s c itiz en s;
• K -2: m in or ch ild re nof K -1s ;
• K -3: sp ou se s o f U n ite d Sta te s c itiz en s;
• K
- 4: m i norchi l dren o fK-3s. In reSes ay, 25 I
. & N. Dec
. 43 1, 43 3 n. 3 ( BI A 2 01 1) ( citing 8 C. F
. R
. § 2 14. 1( a) ( 1) ( v) , ( a) ( 2) )
. The l as t two , K- 3 an d K
- 4 vi sas , ar e par ti cul ar l y r el evanther e. Con g r e s s ’ s s e c o nd r e s po ns e t o the p r o b l e m o fs e par ati on o fspouse s a nd chi l dren is 8 U
. S. C. § 1 255. That sect i on g i ves the Attorney Gener althe p ow erto “a dj ust” the s tat u s of an al i en al re ady pre sent i n the U ni ted S tat es fr o m no n- i m m i g r an t st atus to i m m i g r an t st atus w itho ut th e a lien h a v in g t o re tu rn to h is or h er h om e c ou n tr y. See 8 U .S.C . § 12 55 (a); B enslim a ne v . Go nz a les , 430 F. 3d 828, 83 2- 3 3 ( 7 t hC ir. 20 05 ); Succar v. Ashcroft, 3 9 4 F
. 3 d 8 , 2 2 ( 1st Ci r . 2 0 0 5 )
. T a k e n t o g e the rwi th the K v i s a s y s t e m, a dj us t men t o f s t a tus a l l o ws a n a l i e n s po us e , fi a nc e ( e ) , o r chi l d to enterthe U n ited Stat es tem pora ri l y whil e her p erm an en t visa i s being p rocess ed
. On ce the alien’s appl i ca ti o n fo ra pe r m an ent v isa i s co m pl et e, the al i en m ay change her sta tus fro m non- i m m i gr ant t oN o. 12
- 3008 5 im m igr an t w ith ou t h av in g t o l e a v e th e c ou n tr y firs t. In shor t, K vi sas and adj ustm ent o fst atus al l ow aliens to wai t o utthe p rocedura ls l o gwi ththe i rf ami l i es i n the U ni ted S tat es. Peti ti oner M ahvash A l i sha Akram i s a ci ti zen o f Pa kist a n , a s are her m oth er and her you ng er sister. A kram ’ s m othe r m ar ri ed Farhan Si dd i que, a U ni ted St ate s ci ti zen, o utsid e th e Un i ted S tat es on J uly4, 20 05. Akr am was ei g ht ee n y ea r s o l d a t th e tim e. Afte rthe m ar r i ag e, S i ddi que want ed to move hi s new w if e an d st ep c h ild re n to th e U n ite d Sta te s a s p er m an en t im m igr an ts . A c c or d in gly , Sid d iqu e re qu es t ed K vis as so h is f ami l y c o ul d wai t f o rthe i r p erm anen t vi sa s i n the Uni te d S ta te s i ns te ad o f P akis ta n. He a l so s ta r te d the b all ro llin g on ob ta in in g p er m an en t v isa s fo r h is fam ily b y fil ing ali en rel ative p etitions on th eir beh alf
. The se pe ti ti o ns
— cal l ed “I

- 130 peti ti ons”

— e sta bl i sh a f o r m alf ami l y r el at i o ns hi p t o a U
. S. c i ti ze n o ra l awful p er m anent r esi dent. Thus, S i dd i que’s I
- 130 peti ti on w ou ld , i f gra n te d , est ab lisha f o rm al re lat ion sh ip be twe enSi d d ique a nd hi s ne w f ami l y mem be r s i n the eye s o fth e U.S
. go vernm ent. 8 C.F
. R. § 204. 1( a) ( 1)
. That re l ati onshi p, i n turn, would m ake hi s f am i l y e l i gib le for im m igrant visas as “im m ed iate rel atives” of a U. S
. c i ti ze n. 8 U
. S. C
. § 1151(b)(2)( A )( i)
. A kr am ’s m othe r du l y r ecei ved a K
- 3 vi sa, and herI
- 130 peti ti on was gr anted ata l ate r da te . A kr am ’ s y ounger sis te r re c eiv ed a K -4 v isa an d als o h ad h e r I -13 0 p et iti o n g r an te d. A kr am, ho wev er, f o und h er se l fi n a str ange si tuati on
— he rr e qu e s tf o ra K v i s a wa s g r a nt e d, b uth e rI
- 1 3 0 p e t i t i o n wa s de ni e d.6 N o. 12
- 3008 This odd o utcom e ar ose fro m A kr am ’ s age . A s d iscuss ed, a n a l i eni s el i g ibl e f o ra K- 4 vi sai fs he i s th e “m i norchil d” ofa K
- 3 vi sa- hol der a nd i s “ acco m panyi ng, or foll ow ing to j oin,” th e K -3. 8 U
. S. C
. § 1101(a)(15)( K )( ii i)
. ForK-vi sa pu rpos es, the ter m “m i norchi l d” m eans an u n ma r r i e d s o no rd a u g h t e rwh o i s u n d e rt we nt y - o ne y e a r s o l d. See8 U
. S. C
. § 11 01(b)(1) (defining “c hild” ); In r e Le, 25 I
. & N
. De c. 5 41 , 5 50 ( BI A 20 11 ) ( apply i ng defi ni ti o no f“ c h i l d ” i n8 U. S
. C
. § 1 1 0 1 ( b ) ( 1 ) t o the te rm “m in or ch ild ” u n d er § 11 01 (a)( 15 )(K ) ( i ii)); a cco rd C a rpio v . H o l d er, 592 F.3d 109 1, 1098 ( 10th Cir. 2010). A kr am was ei ghtee n yea rs o ld and un m ar ri ed w hen her m othe r re cei ved a K
- 3 vi sa. A ccor dingly, A kr am was elig ible for a K -4 v isa as h er m ot h e r’s “m in or ch ild ,” 8 U .S.C . § 11 01( a) ( 15) ( K ) ( i i i ) , and A kr am r ecei ved her vi sa on F ebr uary28 , 20 06. N ow h er e is the st ra nge par t: al though Akram was her m othe r’ s “ m i norchi l d” f orK-vi sa pu rpos es, she w as n otSid d i qu e’s “c h ild ” fo r I-13 0 p u rp os es . Th e re as on is that A kr am i s S i dd i que’s stepd a ug hter, not hi s b iologi cal daug h te r. A st epchil d quali fi es as a “ chi l d” f ori m m i gr ati on purpose s o nl y i fshe “had not re ac h ed t he ag e o f ei g ht ee n yea rs a t th e ti m e th e m ar r i ag e cr ea tingthe statu s of step ch il d occu rred
. ” 8 U
. S. C . § 1 101(b)(1)( B ). B ec au se A kr am was al re ady ei ghtee n w hen her m othe r m ar ri ed Sid dique, she w as too o l d to be his “chi l d,” ev en tho ugh she w as sti l lherm othe r’ s “ m i nor chi l d.” A s a resul t, A kr am co uld notsho w a f am i l y r el ati onshi p w i th S i dd i que, and the I
- 130 p etit i on that Si ddi qu e fi l e d o n he r b e ha l f wa s de ni e d o n J a nu ar y 2 3, 2006
.N o. 12
- 3008 7 A kr am ac c or d in gly r e c e ive d p er m iss ion to be in th e Uni t e d S t a t e s , b ut o nly t e mpo r a r i l y, un t i l M a r c h 21, 2007 , a s a K- 4 vi sa - ho l der
. Akr am m o ve d t o the U ni ted S tat es to j oin herm othe r an d a pp l i ed to adj ust h erst atus and becom e a l aw ful perm anent r esi dent. H er appli cati on w as d eni ed

—because no I
- 130 peti ti on had been g ra nted on Akram ’ s b eh al f, she w as not el i g ibl e to b ec om e a per m an en t i m m i g r an t as the re l ati ve ofa U
. S. ci ti zen ( i.e., Siddique)
. In the m eanti m e, Akr am’ s m o th erb ec am e a l awfulpe r m an en t r es i den t and fi l ed hero w n I-13 0 a l i en r el ati ve peti ti on o n A kr am ’s be h alf on Ju n e 2 4 , 2 0 0 8
. See 8 U.S
. C. § 1 153( a) ( 2) (provid ing visa eli gibil ity for “u nm arried sons an d un m arri ed daughter s o fper m anent r esi de n t al i ens”)
. S o f aras w e know , th a t p etition and i ts related pa p erw ork are sti l l wo r k i ngthe i rwa y thr o ugh the s y s t e m. Ne v e r the

l e s s , Ak r am’ s mo th e r ’ s p e t i t i o ni s i mpo r t a n t, a n d we wi l lr etur n t o i t l at eri n o uro pi ni o n. A kr am r em ai ned i n the U n ite d S tat es afterherK-4 vi sa expir ed, and re m ova lpro ceedi ngs a ga in st her bega n on A pri l17, 20 09
. A kr am co nceded rem ovabi l i ty but ar gued that she s houl d be abl e t o sta y a n d a dj ust herst atus. In s u p port, A kr am poi nted to the differ ences between how the chi l dren o ffi ance( e) s ( K
- 2s) and t h e chi l dren o f spouses ( K
- 4s) bec om e perm anent r esi dents. U nd er curr en t re gul ati ons, K-2s need not separ ate l y a pp l y for p erm an en t im m igrant visas . A fter she h as received a K -2 vi sa, a K- 2 m aya dj us t s ta tu s an d b ec o m e a per m an en t re si dent as soo n as h erpare nt’ s m ar ri age i s co m ple te; she do es not n ee d to file an I-130 im m ed iat e re lat ive p et itio n . See 8 C .F.R . § 21 4.2 (k)(6 )(ii); cf
. Ses ay, 2 5 I. & N
. Dec.8 N o. 12
- 3008

N ote, how ever that 8 C.F. R
. § 245. 1( i) does no t prev ent A kram 1 fr o m ever obt ai ni ng a n i m m i gran tvi s a. As the gove rn m en t explai ns, “Ak ram s hould be able t o im m igrat e t o the U n ited St at es thr ough the I
- 13 0 pe t i t i on fi l ed by he r m othe r, as s um i ng th a t sh e i s o th er w ise ad m i s s i b le .” (A p p el le e’s B r. a t 5 0 n .12 .) I n s t e a d , 8 C
. F
. R
. § 2 4 5
. 1 ( i ) , p r e v e n t s A k r a m fr o m a dj us t i ng s t a t us . In other word s, i t r equire s her t o le ave the Unit ed Stat es a n d w ait( perhap s for years ) f or proces si ng in her hom e c ountry before rec ei ving an im m igrantvis a. at43 9 (“ th er e is n o re qu ire m en t fo r a F or m I-130 im m igr ant v i sa peti ti on t o be filed
. . . f orthe fi ancé( e) ”)
. K-4s, on th e othe r h a n d , m us t pa ss th roug h a m uc h n arro w ervi sa peti ti oni ng pro cess . U nd ercurr ent r egul at i on s, t heon ly way tha t a K- 4 c a n a dj us t he r s t a tus to that ofa perm anent i m m i gr ant i s byfi l i ng an I
- 130 peti ti on a nd ther eby showing that sh e i s the “s pouse o r chi l d ofthe U
. S. ci ti zen w h o or i gi nal l y fi l ed the peti ti on for th at ali en ’s K -3/K -4 statu s.” 8 C
. F.R. § 245.1(i ). 1 T h at is a lot to w ra p yo u r h ea d ar ou n d , so w e w i ll i l lu s tr at e th e di ffer en ce . Akr am’ s m o th ermar r i ed S i ddi que ab r o ad. Thu s, Akr am’ s m o th err ec ei ve d a K- 3 vi sa, a nd A kr am r ecei ve d a K
- 4 vi sa. A kr am now w ants to adj ust statu s and bec om e a l aw ful perm anent r esi dent beca use sh e ha s i m m edi at e r el at i ves i n the Uni te d S ta te s. But Sid d iqu e c an n otse rv e a s th atrela ti v e be c au se A kr am is not Si dd i que’s “chi l d.” 8 U
. S. C. § 1 101(b) ( 1) ( B). N or can so m eone el se ( l i ke A kr am ’ s m ot her, f ori nstance ) se r ve a s th atr el at i ve . Tha t i s be ca use, un d er8 C. F
. R. § 2 45. 1( i ) , the o n ly w ay th ata K -4 m ay adj u stst at u s is if the sp o nso ringcitiz en ( i
. e. , S i dd i que) succe ss fully fi l edN o. 12
- 3008 9
an I-130 p et itio non th e K -4’ s b eh alf. A s a res u lt, it is im possibl e forA kr am to adj ust herst atus fro m thato f a K-4 to that ofa l aw ful perm anent r esi dent. N o w suppo se tha t, i ns te ad o fmar r y i ngS i dd i que ab ro ad , A kr am ’s m ot h er d ec id ed to m ar ry Sid d iqu e in th e U nited States. Ins tead of receiving a K -3 visa, A kram ’s m o th er w o ul d ha ve r ec ei ve d a K- 1 fi an ce e vi sa . And i nstea d ofr ecei vi ng a K
- 4 vi sa, A kr am would have re c eiv ed a K
- 2 v i s a . A fte r th e m ar ria ge , th er e w ou ld ha ve b ee n n o ne ed f o rAkr am to s ho w that S i ddi que
— or anyo ne el se
— w as her re l ati ve. A kr am wou ld h ave been ab le t o a dj u sth e r s ta tu s im m ed iat ely
. See 8 C. F
. R. § 214.2(k)( 6)(i i) ; se e also Kond rachuk v. U SC IS , N o. C 08- 5476 CW , 20 09 W L 1883720, at* 2 ( N
. D. Cal. Ju n e 30, 20 09) ( expla i ni ng i m m edi ate adj ustm en t o fst atus und er 8 C .F.R . § 21 4.2 (k)(6 )(ii) )
. In t h i s a lte rn at e u n ive rs e, A kr am would, i n al ll i kel i hood, al re ady be a l aw ful perm anent r esi dent. Thi s s tar k di ffer en c e in outcom es , A kr am ar gued, i s i rr ati onal, co ntra ryto st atute , an d u n c on st itu tio n al. T h e Im m igr at i o nJu d ge (“IJ” ) h eld th atA kr am co u ld not adj ust s tatus thr ough Si dd i que beca use s he i s no t his “ch il d
. ” Th e IJ also held that8 C.F. R
. § 245.1( i) ba rs A kr am fro m adj usti ng st atus by any m ea n s other than thro ugh Si dd i que and that the IJl acke d juri sdic ti on t o d ecl a re 8 C.F. R
. § 245.1( I ) un con stitut ional or con trary to sta tute. The IJther ef or e found A kr am i nel i gibl e t o adj us t h e r st atu s and grante d her volun tary d ep artu re inlieu of re m ov al. See 8 U.S
. C. § 1 229c
. A kr am ap p ea led to th e B oa r d o fIm m igr at ion A p p ea ls ( “BI A ”). Lik e the IJ, the BIA concl ud ed that A kr am10 N o. 12
- 3008

A kram a lso chal le nges an i dentic al regulat ory prov is ion at 2 8 C. F. R
. § 1 2 45. 1( i)
. For s im plic ity’ s sake, w e will use “8 C .F.R
. § 24 5.1(i) ” to refer to b oth p ro v ision s. c ou ld n otad j u stst at u s a s Sid d iqu e’s “c h ild ” a n d th atit lac ke d th e au th or ity to d ec lar e 8 C .F.R . § 24 5.1 (i) u n c on st it u t io n a l or ultra vires
. Se eIn reAkram , 25 I
. & N
. Dec. 874, 880 ( BIA 2012)
. Th e B I A al so denie d A kr am ’ s m oti on to re m and t h e c ase to al l ow her t o adj ust s tatus as a r e l a t i v e o fher mo th e r, w h o b y th a tt i me h a d b e c o me a la w fu l p er m an en t re sid en t. Id. at88 2. T h e B IA re aso ned that A kr am could notadj ust s tatus thr ough her m othe r because 8 C.F
. R. § 245. 1( i ) bar re d A kr am fr o m a dj us tings ta tu s o n a nyb as i s o th erb y a r el at i o nsh ip to Sid d iqu e. Akra m , 25 I. & N
. Dec. at88 2. A kr am now peti ti ons f orr evi ew , a rguing, o nce ag ai n, that 8 C. F. R. § 245. 1( i ) i s unconst i tuti onaland co n trar y t o the wil lo fCongr ess . 2
II. A NA LYSIS Underc ur r en t r egulati o ns , Akr am ca nno t adj us t st atus “in a nywayo th ertha n a s a spo us e o rc hi l d o fthe U
. S. ci ti zen who or i gi nal l y fi l ed th e p eti ti on forthat al i en’ s K-3/K
- 4 s tatus. ” 8 C. F. R. § 245. 1( i )
. S i dd i q ue was the U. S. cit i zen who or i gi nal l y fi l ed the peti ti on for A kr am ’ s K-4 sta tus. But, as di scusse d, A kr am does no t qua l i fy a s S i ddi que ’ s “c hi l d” be ca us e sh e was e i g ht e e n whe n S i ddi qu e ma r r i e d h er m o the r . 8 U. S
. C. § 1 101(b) ( 1) ( B). A ccor dingly, she cannot adj ust s tatus as Sid d iqu e’s child. A nd , becau se 8 C
. F.R. § 245.1(i ) barsN o. 12
- 3008 11 h er from ad j u st in g s ta tu s in an y ot h er w ay , th e B IA h eld th atA kr am ca n n otad j u stst at u s a t a ll. Akr am at ta ck s th i s ho l di ngo n two fr o nt s. F i r st, s he a r gu e s th a t8 C
. F
. R
. § 2 4 5. 1( i ) i s c o n t r a r y t o s t a tu t e . As a r esul t, A kr am sa ys that she s houl d be abl e t o adjust statu s w ithou t ben e fi tting from an I- 130 p etition, or, al te r na ti ve l y, b y hav in ghe rmothe r, who i s no w a l awful p erm an en t residen t, file a n I- 130 p etition on A kram ’s be ha l f
. S ec o nd, Akr am ar g ue s th at, even if8 C. F
. R. § 2 45. 1( i ) i s s tatutor i l y per m iss ibl e, i t i s nev er thel ess so irr ational tha t it viol ates th e Fourte en th A m en d m en t’s Equa lPr o te cti o n Cl au se . J udi ci alr es tr aintr equi r es us to avo i d add re ssing co nsti tuti onalquesti ons w here possib le, s e eC a mr e t a v . G r e e ne, 1 3 1 S. Ct
. 2020, 2031 (2011), so w e wil lta ke up the sta tutory quest i on fi rs t. A kr am chal l enges b oth an adm ini str ati ve re gul ati on th a th a s g o n e th r o u g hn o t i c e - a n d

- c o mme n tr u l e ma k i ng and a pre cedenti alBI A o pini on. A s a r esul t, we re view he r cha ll en ge th roug h th e lens of Che vron, U .S.A. , Inc . v. Nat ural Re s our ces D e

f e ns eCounc i l, Inc . , 467 U
. S. 837, 84 2- 44 (19 84 ). See U nited Sta tes v. M ead C o rp., 533 U
. S. 21 8, 22 6- 27 ( 20 01 ) ( r ul es pr o m ul g at ed th r o ugh n o ti ce - an d- co m m en t rulem aking ent i tl ed to Che vron d eferenc e); Es co b arv. Ho lder, 657F.3d 5 3 7, 5 42 (7t hC ir. 20 11 ) (p re c ed en tia l B IA opi ni ons i nter preting g ove rni ng l ega lst andards enti tl ed to Che vron defer en ce )
. Ourfi r stt as ki s to de te r m i ne “w hether Congr ess has dir ectly s poken t o the pr eci se questi on a t i ssue. ” Che vron , 467 U
. S. at 842. “Th e j ud ici ary i s the fina l autho ri ty on i ssues o fst atuto ryco nstr ucti on an d m us t rej ect ad m inistrative cons tru ctions w hich are12 N o. 12
- 3008 contr ar y t o cl earco ngre ssi onali nten t. ” Id. at84 3 n. 9. Thus , “ [ i ]fa co ur t, e m pl o y i ngt r adi ti o na lt o o l s o fs ta tu to r y c o ns truct i o n, a scer ta i ns tha t Con g r es s ha d a n int en tio non th e p re c ise qu es tio nati s s u e , th atint en tio nis the l aw a n d m ust be gi ven e ffect. ” Id. ; ac co r d Ci ty of Ar l i n gton v. F CC, 1 33 S
. Ct
. 1 86 3, 1 86 8 ( 20 13 )
. I f, o n the othe r hand , the sta tute i s a m bi guous, the n w e “m ust defert o a n a g en cy ’ s r ea so nabl e in te r pr et at i o n o fthe sta tute .” Sa rm iento v. Ho lder, 680 F. 3d 799, 802 ( 7 t h Cir. 2012 ) ( ci t i ng Che vron , 467U .S. at 8 42 -44 ); acco rd Ar l i ngt on, 133 S. Ct. at18 68. W e do not thi nk tha t 8 C
. F. R. § 245. 1( i ) can be s quared wi ththe wi l lo fCongre ss . S ev er als ta tu te s ar e r el ev an t he r e, b utthe mos t i m po r ta nti s 8 U. S
. C. § 1 10 1( a) (15)( K ), whi c h c r e a t e d the K v i s a c a t e g o r y . A s we ha v e a l r e a dy d isc u ss ed , th is s t a t u t e p ro vid es th atan alien is elig ible f ora non- i m m i gr ant v i sa i fhe o r she: ( i ) i s th e fi an ce e o r fi an ce o f a ci ti ze n ofthe Un i t e d S t a t e s . . . a n d wh o s e e k s t o e n t e rt he U nited States solely to con clud e a vali d m arri age w i th the peti ti onerwithi n ni nety days afte ra dm i ss i o n; ( i i ) has concl ud ed a v al i d m arri age with aci ti zen of the U ni ted St ate s . . . w ho i s the petition er , i s the b enefi ci ar y of a p eti ti on t o acco rd a sta tus [ as ani m m edi at e r el at i ve ] , a nd s eek s to e nt erthe U n ite d Sta te s t o a w aitth e a p p ro va l of su c h p et itio nan d th e a va ilab ility to th e a lien o fan im m igr ant v i sa; o rN o. 12
- 3008 13 (iii) is th e m in or ch ild of an alien d es c rib ed in [ cl au se ( i i ) ] a nd i s acco m pany i ng, o rf o l l o wi ng to j oin, th e a lien [.] Id. I t i s no t ha r d t o s ee whatCo ng r es s was a im ing f o r . The pur p o s e o fa K v i s a i s t o a l l o w fi a n c e ( e ) s , s p o u s e s , a nd c h ild re nof cit ize n s t o e n te r th e U n ite d Sta te s t em p or ar ily w hi l e a w ai ti ng per m anent v i sas . S ubsect ion (ii ) , for i ns ta nc e, c o ndi ti o ns a va il ab i l i tyo fa K- 3 vi sao n the need f orthe app lica n t to aw ai t “ the a vai l abi l i ty . . . o fan i mm i g r a ntv i sa. ” Id. S ubs ec ti o n ( i i i ) us es di ffer en t l an g ua g e, b uti t ac hi ev es the sam e r es ul t. I t co ndi ti o ns the a v a i l a b i l i ty o fa K
- 4 v i s a o nth e c h i l d ’ s d e s i r e t o “ a c c o mpany[ ] , o r f ol l ow[] to j oin” thei r parent. The m ost n at u ra l re ad in g of th is l an gu ag e is th at th e K -4 w i l l jo in hi s o rh e rp a re nt p erm anently . Ind eed, the BIA hel d as m u c h in th is ver y ca se ; it sta te d th at th e pu rp o s e o fall K vis as i s to “ to c o nferno ni m m i g r an t st atus t o a l i en s who [are ] a wai tingthe a va i l ab i l i tyo fa n i m m i g r an t vi sa . ” Akram , 25 I. & N . D ec. at87 9 ( i nter nalquotat i on m arks om itted ). That does not m ean that all K vi sa re ci pie nts w ill som ed ay b e c o m e la w fu l p er m an en t re sid en ts , of co u rs e. A K
- 3 vi sa l ast s l ong enough to a ll ow “the a pp ro valo f ” a n I
- 1 3 0 p e t i t i o n t o a c c o r d s t a tus a s a s po us e . 8 U. S
. C. § 1 10 1(a) ( 15) ( K ) ( i i )
. I fthe I
- 130 peti ti on were denie d ( because the m ar ri age was a s ham , f orinst ance) , then th e K- 3 visa w o ul d t er m i na te wi th o utthe K- 3 be co m i ng a law ful perm an en t residen t. I n su ch a case, the K -4’s d erivative visa w ou ld ex p ire a s w e ll becau se th ere14 N o. 12
- 3008
w ou ld be n ob od y left for th e K
- 4 to “fo llow [] to j oin .” 8 U
. S. C
. § 1101(a)(15)( K )( ii i)
. Bu t, under nor m alci rcum sta nces, a K -4 vi sa- hol der w ill b ec om e a law fu l p er m an en t re sid en t. N ot h in g in the s tatute s ugges ts t hat Congr ess i ntended fo r K
- 4s li k e Akr am to co m e to th e Uni te d S ta te s as m ere tem p or ar y v i si tor s. Ind eed, the f act that Congre ss cre ate d separa te provi si ons f orte m pora ryvi si tors, see 8 U.S
. C. § 1 101( a) ( 15) ( B), sugg est s pre ci sely the o pp osi te. So to re vie w , th e tex t an d st ru c tu re of § 11 01 (a)( 15 )(K )(iii) su g g e s t th a t C o n g r e s s i n t e n d e d K- 4 s t o e n t er t he Un i t e d S t a t e s a n d th e nl a t e ra dj u s ts t a tu s t o b e c o me l aw ful perm anent r esi dents. A s d i scusse d, A kr am wants to d o ex actlythat
. By r equi ring Akram to adj ust only by w ay ofS i dd iq u e, 8 C. F. R. § 245. 1( i ) frust ra tes that goa l
. A ccor dingly, 8 C.F
. R. § 245.1(i) ’ s l i m i tat i ons on K visas find no su p p ort i n su bsec tion K i tself. The que st i o n, the n, i s whethe rs o m e o the rs ta tu tory pr ovi si on s up port s 8 C. F. R. § 245. 1( i ) ’ s r equi re m ent that K-4 s a dj ust s tatus onl y by w ay of the U
. S. ci ti ze n who pe titi one d f o rthe i rK v i sa . The g o ve r nm en t cl ai m s that s eve ra lst atute s sup portthi s r equi re m ent. I t begins w i th 8 U
. S. C. § 1255 ( d), w hi ch provi des that a K vis a-h old er m ay on ly a dj u stst at u s “ a s a res u lt of the m arriage ofthe n onim m igrant (or, i n th e c a s e o f a m i no rc hi l d, the pa r en t) t o the c i ti ze n who fi l ed th e pet i ti o n t o a cc ord tha t al i en ’ s no ni m m i g r an t st atus un de r s e c t i o n 1 1 0 1 ( a ) ( 1 5 ) ( K) o fthi s t i t l e . ” 8 U. S
. C. § 12 55 ( d)
. The s i m i l ar i tyb etwee n thi s pr o vi si on and 8 C
. F. R. § 245. 1( i ) i s obvi ous
— re c all th at 8 C .F.R
. § 2 45 .1(i) pr o vi des tha t a K- 3 o rK- 4 ca nno t adj us t s ta tu s “in a nyN o. 12
- 3008 15
w ay othe r than as a spouse or c h ild ofthe U
. S. ci ti zen w ho origi n a lly fi led th e pe titi on for that alien’s K -3/K -4 st atus . ” Lat ch ing on to whati t des cr ibe s as the “ pl ain” s t a tut o r y l a ngua g e , the g o v e r nme nta r g ue s 8 U. S
. C. § 1255( d) a nd 8 C.F
. R. § 245. 1( i ) ar e e sse nti al l y i dent ica l. Th us , the g o v e r nme ntco nc l ud e s tha t8 U. S
. C. § 1 2 5 5 ( d) supp or ts 8 C. F. R. § 245. 1( i ) ’ s r est ri cti ons. B ut § 1255(d ) d oes n o t sup p ort the gov ernm en t’s re ading
. N othing i n § 1255 ( d) re quir es K
- 4s to adj ust st at u s “ as a . . . c h ild of th e U .S. c i t i z e n w h o or igin ally filed the peti ti on. ” 8 C. F. R. § 245. 1( i )
. To the co ntra ry, § 1 255( d) r equi re s K-4s to adj ust s tatus “ as a re sult of t he m a r r i age o f
. . . the p a r e nt. . . t o the c i t i z e n. ” 8 U. S
. C. § 12 55(d ) (em pha si s adde d)
. In o th erwor ds, i t i s th e m ar r i age, not the re l ati onshi p to the U
. S. ci ti zen , that d efin es th e s ta tu to ry lim ita tio n . Se eChoi n v . M ukasey, 537 F
. 3d 11 16 , 1 11 9 n. 4 ( 9th Ci r . 2 00 8) ( “T he r e i s no questi on th at the pl ai n l anguage o fthe sta tute bar s K vi sa ho l der s fr o m a dj us tingt o pe r m an en t r es ide nts ta tu s o n a nyb asi s o th er tha n the m a rriag e to the c i ti ze n who p et itio n ed on t h eir be h alf.” ) (em p h as is a d d ed ); cf. M a rko vsk i v . Go nz a les , 48 6 F
. 3d 108, 11 0 ( 4th Ci r. 20 07) ( “Oni ts f ac e, subs ec ti o n ( d) pr o hibi ts a n a l i enwho ar r i ve d o n the K- 1 fi an cé v i safr o m a dj us ting his s ta tu s o n a ny basis w ha tever sav e for the m a rriag e to the K -1 visa sp ons or. ”) ( em p ha sis add ed ). This textualdi ffer ence i s cruci al
. Se cti on 1255 ( d) unquesti onably b ar s K vi sa- hol ders fro m adj usti ng st atus f or r ea so ns unr el at ed t o the mar r i ag e th atpr ec i pi ta te d the vi sa . Thu s, a K- 1 who en te r s th e Uni te d S ta te s as the fi an cee of one m a n c an notadj us t statu s throu gh a m ar-16 N o. 12
- 3008

S eek ing a vis a thr oug h her m other w ould b e poss ible , 3 alth ou g h it w ou ld likely in v olv e a lon g er w ait. Fed era l statute p ro v ides thatanal i enm ay adj us ts t atus on l y i fthe re i s a v isa “i m m edi ately avai l abl e” f or he r. 8 U. S. C. § 12 55 ( a)
. Unl i ke v isa s fo r c h ild re n o f U .S. ci tiz en s, see 8 U .S.C . § 1 1 5 1 (b )(2)(A )(1), visas f or the chi ldren of la w ful perm anent r es idents are su b jec t to y ea rl y n u m er ic a l ca p s, see8 U. S. C. § 11 53 ( a) ( 2)
. A s a r e s ul t, vi s a s ar e n ota l way s “ i m m e di a t e l y a va i l a bl e , ” 8 U. S
. C. § 1 2 5 5 ( a ) , f orc hi l dr e n ofl a wful pe r m a ne ntr e s i de nt s . I ns t e a d, a child seek ing a visa throu g h her law ful p erm an en t im m igr a n tp a r e n tg e n e r a l l y mus twa i ti n l i n e ( me t a p h o r i c a l l y, a t le a st) fo r a v isa to b ec o m e a v a ila b l e. S ee U S C IS , Visa A v a ilabil i ty & P ri ori ty D ates , http ://w w w .uscis. g ov /po rtal/sit e /uscis/ m en u item .eb1 d4c2a 3e 5b9 ac892 43 c6a 75 43 f6d 1a /?vg ne xtch an ne l= 

### (continued...) ria ge to an ot h er m an . B irdso ngv. Ho lder, 641 F. 3d 957, 95 7- 58, 96 0- 61 (8th Ci r. 20 11)
. S i m i l ar l y, a K
- 4 who enter s t o j oin her p aren t c a n n o t a d j us t statu s by w ay of he ro wn m ar ria ge to a U .S. citiz en . In re Va le nzuela , 25 I
. & N
. Dec. 86 7, 868- 71 ( BIA 2012)
. A tte m pts to adj ust s tatus under these ci rcum sta nces sq u ar el y c onfl i ct with the re quir em e nt tha t K v i s a - ho l de r s a dj us t s t a tus “ a s a r e s ulto f the m ar ri age ” th at f or m ed the basi s forthe K vi sa. 8 U
. S. C
. § 1255(d ). Bu t that i s no t what A kr am w an ts to do. S he wants t o “ f o l l o w[ ] t o j o i n” he r mother, as 8 U
. S. C. § 1 101( a) ( 15) ( K ) ( i ii) p ro vi des. A nd she w ants to adj ust her sta tus e i ther (1 ) l i ke a K-2, as a dir ect re sul t o fher m o ther’s m ar r i ag e; o r( 2) thr o ugh h ermothe r, who becam e a per m anent r esi dent as a d ire ct r esul t o fher ma r r i a g e t o S i d d i qu e . E i th e ro fth e s e me c h a n i s ms 3N o. 12
- 3008 17



### (...continued) a a 2 9 0 a 5 6 5 9 0 8 3 2 1 0 Vg n VC M1 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 2 c a 6 0 a R C R D& v g n e x t oi d= aa290a5659083210V gnV CM 100000082ca60aR CR D ( las t vi si ted J uly 1, 2013)
. Bu t this f actdoes not neces sar il y prevent A kram f ro m a dj u s t i n g s t a tu s v i a h e r l a wfu l p e r man e n tr e s i dent m oth er. Co nsisten t w ith t h e u n d erly ing p u rp ose o f the K v isa s ys t em , the go ver nm en tc oul d al l ow Akram t o r em ai n i n the Uni t ed S t at es ona K- 4 vi s a un t i l s he r ea c he s the fro nt of the li ne and an i m m igrantvis a becom es “i m m ediate ly avail able” to herby w ay ofher m other. w ou ld be a “as a result ofthe m arriage of” A kram ’s m o th er to S i ddi que . 8 U. S
. C. § 12 55 ( d)
. Con tr ary to the g o ve r nm en t’ s argu m en t, § 1 25 5( d) ’ s te xti s en ti r ely c o nsi stent w ith a l l o wi ngAkr am to a dj us t st atus i n the w ays she propos es. U nd er § 1255 ( d)’ s pla i n l anguage , i t i s the K- 3’ s m ar r i age, no t th e K- 4’ s r el at i o ns hi p t o the peti ti oni ng ci ti zen, thatm att er s. Other port i ons ofthe I N A s u p portthi s pl ai n-l anguage re ad in g. C on s i d e r 8 U .S.C . § 11 86 a, w h ich p lac es co n d itio n s o np er m an en t re sid en c e fo r K vis a im m igr an ts . See C arpio , 59 2 F
. 3d at 10 98
- 11 00 ( i nt er pr et i ng § 12 55 i n l i g ht of§ 1186 a)
. Li ke § 1 255( d), § 1186 a d efines a K-3 “al i en spouse” i n ter m s o fa re l ati onshi p to a U
. S. ci ti zen o r p er m an en t re sid en t. See 8 U
. S. C. § 1 186a ( h)( 1) ( A ) ( “spouse of a citizen of th e U nited States”); 8 U. S
. C. § 1 1 8 6 a ( h) ( 1 ) ( B) (“fi an cee or fia n c e of a citi zen of th e U nited States”); 8 U .S.C
. § 1 1 8 6a (h )(1) (C ) (“s p ou se of an alien law fu lly adm i tte d fo r perm anent r esi dence ”). Bu t, al so l i ke § 1 255( d), § 1186 a r efers t o K
- 4 ch i l dre n i n ter m s o f thei r parent’ s m ar r i age
— 8 U.S
. C. § 1 186a ( h)( 2) defi nes an “a l i en so n ordaughter, ” in part, as “a n al i en18 N o. 12
- 3008
w ho obtains the st atus ofan a l i en la w fu lly adm i tte d fo r perm anent re si dence
. . . by vi rtue of being the s on o r daught ero fa n i ndiv idual t hrough a q ual i f yi ng m ar r i age .” Id. ( em p ha sis add ed ). Tw o parts o fthi s t ext s tand out. The fi rs t is th e use o f the t er m “ind i vid ual
. ” Id
. Tha t wor d c o nt r as ts wi ththe w or ds that § 1 186auses to r eferto spousa li m m i gr ants. W he re sp ou se s are conc erne d , § 1186a u ses m ore speci fi c te rm s l i ke “ci ti zen” or “al i en l aw fully a dm i tte d fo r perm anent r esi dence. ” See 8 U
. S. C
. § 1186a(c)(4 )( C ), ( h)( 1) ( A )
- ( C). S urel y Congr ess al so coul d have us ed th es e te r m s i n the i rdi sc us si o n o fK- 4 ch i l dr en . B u t instead , Con gress u sed a m ore gene ral term

— “ i nd ivid u al”

— th at encom passes U
. S. ci ti zens, U
. S. per m an en t re sid en ts , and alien parents . “ ‘ Whe r e C o n g r e s s i ncl ud es parti cul arl angu age i n one sect i on o fa sta tute buto m its it in ano th ers ec ti o n o fthe s ame Act, i t i s g en er al l y pr es um ed th atCo ng r es s ac ts i nt entio na l l y a nd p u rp os ely in t h e d is p ar at e in c lu sio nor ex c lu sio n .’ ” M o ral -Sa la z a r v . H o l d er, 70 8 F
. 3d 957, 96 1 ( 7th Ci r. 20 13) ( q uo tingK uc a na v. Ho lder, 5 5 8 U. S
. 2 3 3 , 2 4 9 ( 2 0 1 0 ) )
. Thus, Co n gr ess ’ s cho i ce o fwords sugg est s that a K-4 m ay be d efi ne d b y a r e lation sh ip to the ir alie n parent in addi ti o n t o the i rc i ti ze n s te ppar en t. That, i n tur n, su g g ests thatCo ng r es s di d no t i nt en d f o ra r el at i o nshi p w i th a ci ti zen s teppare nt to be the only w ay for a K -4 to adj ust s tatus. Secon d , and perh ap s m ore i m p ortan t, is § 1186 a’s em phasi s o n m ar ri age . Li ke § 1 255 (d ), § 11 86a( h)( 2) presupposes that K
- 4 chi l dren wil l o b tain sta tus no tN o. 12
- 3008 19 thro ugh a r el ati onshi p to a ci ti zen, but r ather“thro ugh a qu alify in g m ar ria ge .” T h is em p h as is on m ar ria g e in § 11 86 a fur th ers ug g ests th at, i n dr afting§ 1 25 5( d) , Co ngr es s in te n d ed to allow K -4s to adj u stst at u s a s a res u lt of the i r pa r e nt ’ s mar r i a g e a nd no t mer e l y b a sed o n a r el at i o ns hi p t o a c i ti ze n. T he pu rp ose an d history of § 1255(d ) also sup p ort thi s r eadi ng. Bef or e § 12 55( d) was passe d, “even a sham mar r i a g e t o a Uni t e d S t a t e s c i t i z e n pr o v i de d ar e a dy an d im m ed iat e p at hto law fu l p er m an en t re sid en t s ta tu s.” C hoin , 53 7 F
. 3d at 1120
. A ccor dingly, Con gr ess passe d th e I m m i gr ati on M ar ri age Fr aud A m endm ents of19 86, Pub
. L. No
. 9 9
- 6 3 9 , 1 0 0 S t a t . 3 5 3 7 (1 9 8 6 )
. T he s e a men dm en ts w er e desi gned “to deteri m m i gr ati on- re l ate d m ar ri age fra ud and ot her i m m i gr ati on fra ud , ” C hoin , 53 7 F. 3d at 1120 , byel i m i nati ng the “s tr eam l i ned, nearly autom ati c adj ustm ent-of- sta tus pro cedure f orK-1 vi sa hold ers . ”Bi r ds ong, 6 41 F. 3d at 960. Thus, § 1255 ( d) pr ovi des, i n e ss ence, that( 1) a perso n w ho i s l et i nto the c ou ntryto m ar rya ci ti zen m ust a ctual l y m ar rythat ci ti zen; and ( 2) a perso n w ho i s l et i nto the c ountr y t o j oin herpare nts m ust a ctual l y j oin herpare nts. W e ca n see wh y Congr ess would endors e these sensibl e pr i nci ple s. But w hy would Con gr ess endor se the re sul t i n thi s case ? W hy adm i t a cl ass of peopl e int o th e cou nt ry
— usi ng a vi sa desi gned to r euni te f am i l i es
— on ly to giv e th em th e b oo t a f t e r a few ye ar s? W h atan tifra ud purpose does that ser ve? N on e , i tturns o ut . Aft e rthe I mm i g r a t i o n M a r r i age Fr aud A m endm ents w er e passed, i t be cam e cl earthat th ey h ad u n in te n d ed co n se qu en c es on K vis a im m i-20 N o. 12
- 3008 gr ants. A s the Departm ent o fH om el and Secur i ty has reco g ni ze d, the a m en dm en ts “ cr ea te d a g ap r eg ar di ng the pr oce du re f or a K
- 2 a l i en to adj ust s tatus to thato f a p er so nad m itt ed for p er m an en t re sid en c e.” M emorand u m from M ich ae l L . A yt es , A ss oc . D ir. of D om es t ic Ops. f o rUSCI S, re: Adj us tmento fS ta tu s f o rK- 2 Ali en s (M ar . 15, 20 07 ), ava il ableat ht tp : //w w w . us cis. gov/U SC I S/ L a w s / M e m o r anda/S tat i c_Fi l es_ M e m o r anda/ k2 ad j u st st at u s0 31 50 7.p d f (las t v isit ed Ju ly 1 , 201 3); see al s o Kondrac huk, 200 9 W L 18 83 72 0, at*2; Le, 25 I. & N
. Dec. at5 50
. This ga p m ea nttha t “K- 2 vi saho l der s who [w ere] ei gh teen or older at th e tim e of th eir K -1 paren t’s m ar ri age [ w er e] notco nsi dered i m m edi ate rela tive s o f a U.S
. ci ti zen a nd [ w er e] notel i gibl e foran i m m edi ate vi sa. ” Kondrac huk, 20 09 W L 1883720, at* 2. A nd thatwas so “eve n though these chi l dren were gi ven K-2 vi sas to ente r th e U ni ted S tat es w i th the i r K
- 1 par ent when th ey had al re ady at tained ei ghtee n yea rs o fag e. ” Id. In othe r w or ds, K -2s were i n the sam e pr edi cam ent that A kr am now find s her sel fi n as a K-4. The res p on se to thi s pre dica m ent was 8 C.F. R. § 214. 2( k) ( 6) ( i i ) , wh i ch provi des an adm i ni str ati ve m eans f or K
- 2s to adj ust statu s w ith o u t d em ons trating a relationsh ip to a U
. S. c itiz en . Le, 25 I
. & N
. Dec. at54 9- 50. In other w or ds, bo th th e BI A and the age ncy co ncl ud ed that Congre ss inten d ed to al low K -2s to adjust statu s even i f th ey w ere al re ady ei ghtee n at the t i m e o fthei r parents ’ m ar ri age s. I t i s uncl earwh y the sa m e a dm i ni str ati ve fi x w as not m ade f or K -4s. Perhaps i t i s be cause the I m m i gr ati on M a r r i a g e F r a ud Amen dme nt s we r e p a s s e d in 1 9 8 6 , P ub
. L. N o. 99- 639, 100 St at 3537 ( 1986 ) , and K-4 vi sas w er e notN o. 12
- 3008 21
c re at ed u n til 20 00 , see LegalIm m igrati on F am i l y Equity A ct, Pu b. L . 1 0 6 -553, 114 Stat
. 2762, at 2762A -114 (2000). T h e is su e m ay sim p ly h av e fa d ed from at te n tio nin the inter veni ng fourt een y ear s. B u t whateverthe re aso n f o rthe l ack of an admi ni st r at i ve s o l ut i o n, we se e no s t at ut ory reason f or treat in g K -2s and K -4s so differentl y. A fteral l, K-2 and K

- 4 visas ar i se fro m the exact sa m e sta tu to ry lan gu ag e. See 8 U
. S. C
. § 1101(a)(15)( K )( ii i)
. A nd cons ider th e bizarre up sh ot of th e gov ernm en t’s re adingo f§ 1255 ( d)’ s l egi sl ati ve hi sto ry . S et asi de f or the m om ent the f act that § 1255 ( d)’ s t ext doe s no t actu all y requ ire K -4 s t o adj us t statu s by w ay of a U
. S. c iti zen. I fthe sta tute didr e qu i r e K- 4 s t o a dj u s ts ta tu s vi a a ci ti ze n, why no t r equi r e K- 2s to d o t he s ame? Co nsidera g ain tha t, a t th e ti m e Con g r es s pas se d § 1 255(d), th e K -1 and K -2 categories existed , bu t th e K -3 and K -4 c at eg or ies d id n ot . W h y, i n e n a c tin g § 12 55 (d ), w ou ld C ong ress w an t to ( 1) not l egi sl ate r eg ar ding vi sa cate gories (K -1s and K -2s) th at th en existed , bu t nev erthel ess ( 2) i m pose add i ti on alburdens on vi sa cate gor i es ( K
- 3s and K

- 4s) that d i dn o tex i s ta tth et i me ? The onl y l ogi calanswer i s that C ongres s di d not i ntend § 1255( d) t o preve nt peopl e in A kr am ’ s s i tuati on fr o m a dj u s t i n gs t a tu s . S e c t i o n1 2 5 5 ( d ) do e s n o tr e qu i r e K4s to adj us t statu s by w ay of their p etitioning ste p p arent. Instea d, i t m er el y r eq u ire s them to adj ust s tatus “a s a r esul t o fthe m ar ri age o f ” thei r parents . A kr am ’ s pro p osed m eth od s of adj us ting sta t u s both w ou ld satisfy th at r equi r ement . The s tructur e an d hi st o r y o fthe sta tute furthersupp ort he r. That co ntra sts with the go v-22 N o. 12
- 3008
ernm en t’ s r ea di ngo f§ 1 25 5( d) , e m be dded i n 8 C. F
. R. § 2 45.1(i ), thata K -4 m ay adj us t statu s only by w ay of a re lat ion sh ip t o th e p et itio n in g c itiz en . Th atrea d in g is unm oo re d fr om § 12 55 (d ) ’ s t ext, does nothi ng to fur th er§ 1 25 5( d) ’ s p urpo se o ffr au d- pr ev en ti o n, a nd fr us tr at es the unde r l y i ngg o al s o fthe K vi sas y st em. “ The j ud ici ary is th e fina l au th ority o n i s s ue s of statu tory const ructi on a nd m ust r ej ec t a dm i ni str ati ve const ructio n s w h ich are co n tr ar y t o c lea r c on gr es sio n al in te n t.” Che vron , 46 7 U.S
. at84 3 n .9. W e there f or e co ncl ud e that 8 C. F
. R. § 2 45
. 1( i ) ’ s r equi r ementtha t K- 4s a dj us t st atus only by w ay ofthe sponsor i ng U.S
. ci ti zen is co ntra ryto 8 U
. S. C
. § 1255(d ) an d 8 U
. S. C
. § 1101(a)(15)( K )( ii i)
. The go vernm ent points t o tw o othe r sta tutes i n defe nse o f 8 C. F
. R. § 24 5. 1( i ) , but ne i th er su ppo r ts the gove r nm en t’s read in g . T he first provision is 8 U
. S. C
. § 1255(a), w hi ch pro vi des that [ t] he s ta tu s o fa n al i enwho was i ns pec te d a nd adm i tte d orparo l ed i nto the U ni ted St ate s . . . m ay be a dj usted bythe A tto rneyGenera l, i n hi s di scr eti on a nd under s uch r egul ati ons as he m ay prescr ibe, to thato fan a l i en la w fully a dm i tte d fo r perm anent r esi dence i f( 1) the al i en m akes a n ap p lica tio nfor s u c had j u st m en t, (2) th e alien is e l i gibl e t o r e c e i v e a n i mm i g r a ntv i s a a nd i s a dm iss ib le t o th e U n ite d Sta te s fo r p er m an en t re sid en c e, an d (3 ) a n im m igr an t v isa is im m ed iat ely a v a i l ab l e t o h i m a tth e ti me hi s ap pl i c a t i o n i s fi l e d. I n o th erwor ds, a n a l i enm ay adj us t st atus i f( 1) s he ap p lies for it; (2) s h e is eligib le t o im m igr at e p er m an en tly to th e U n ite d St at es ; an d (3) an im m igr an t v isa is im m ed i-N o. 12
- 3008 23

A lthoug h 8 U.S. C. § 1255( a) gives the A tt o rn ey G eneral 4 “d iscretion ” to ad just an alie n ’s sta tu s, “[t] he m ere fact tha t a statu te giv es the A ttorn ey G en e r a l d i sc retio n a s to w he the r to gr antr el i efaft erappl i c at i on does no tby i t s el f g iv e the A tt orney G eneralthe disc ret ion t o defi ne el igibili ty f or s uch rel ie f
. ” Succar, 39 4 F .3d at 10
. T hu s, w e reta in t h e a u tho rity to ensure thatthe Attorney General exe rci se s his o r her disc ret i o n w ith in la w fu l b o u n d s. SeeIN S v. C ar doza

- Fonse ca , 480 U. S
. 4 2 1 , 4 4 4
- 4 5 , 4 4 9
- 5 0 ( 1 9 8 7 ) ( i nv a l i da t i nga dm i ni s t r a t i ve inter p reta tion as con trar y to co ng r e ss i on al inten t be cau se it li m it ed the Attor ney G eneral ’ s disc ret ion i n w a y s n ot r equire d b y sta tu te ). ate l y a vai l abl e t o her. T h e gov er nm ent then poi nts t o 4 8 U. S
. C. § 115 4( a) ( 1) ( A), whi chpr o vi des tha t “a ny c itiz en of th e U n ite d Sta te s c laim in g th atan alien is e n t i t l e d t o c l a s s i fi c a t i o nb y r e a s o n o f[ a f a mi l i a lo ri mmed i a t e r e l a t i v e r e l a t i o ns hi p] ma y fi l e a p e ti ti on w ith th e A tt or n ey G en er al for su c hcla ss ifica tio n,” 8 U.S
. C. § 1 154( a) ( 1) ( A ) (i ) , unl ess the ci ti zen has bee n c o nv i c t e d ofa se r i o us c r i me a g a i ns ta mi no r, 8 U. S
. C. § 1154 (a)( 1)(A )( vii i) (I )- (I I ). The go vernm en t ar gues that these two st atute s, r ead to ge th er, su p p or t 8 C .F.R . § 24 5.1 (i) by “u n am b ig u ou sly demons tr at [ i ng ] th atCo ng r es s i nt en ded no ni m m i g r an t i m m edi ate r el ati ves see ki ng adj ustm ent o fs tatus to show im m i gr ant v i sa el i gibi l i ty an d avai l abi l i ty” by f i l i ng a n I
- 1 3 0
. ( Appe l l e e ’ s Br
. a t 3 5
. ) Bu t we do no t s ee how
. Section 1 1 5 4 (a)( 1)(A ) m erely provid es th at a U
. S. ci ti ze n m ay askthe gover n m ent t o tr eatherr el ati ves as re l ati ves. I t doe s no t r equi re i m m i gr ants w ho have r el a-24 N o. 12
- 3008

The B IA held thatAk ram w as not elig ible to rec ei ve an 5 i mm i g r a n t v i s a b e c a u s e o f 8 U. S
. C
. § 1 2 5 5 ( d) a nd 8 C. F
. R. § 24 5 .1(i ). SeeA kr am , 25 I
. & N
. D ec. at 882
. It d id no t ad d ress w he the r A k ram cou ld oth erw ise m eet § 1 25 5(a)’ s visa a v ailab i l i t y requ irem en ts. A cco rd ing ly, w e leav e to th e B IA to d eterm i n e on rem an d w he the r A k ram ultim ately w ill be a b le to satisfy th ose re qu irem en ts. ti ves i n the U ni ted S tat es to apply for v isas, o r adj ust sta tus, o n that basi s al one . And 8 U. S
. C. § 1 2 5 5 ( a ) s ays that al i ens who w ant t o adj ust s tatus m ust s how they a r e e l i g ib l e t o i mm i g r a t e a nd tha tthe r e i s a v i s a r e a dy f orthem
. U ni m peded by8 C.F
. R. § 245. 1( i ) , A kr am m i g htb e ab l e to make tha t sh o wi ng . S he might, f o ri nstan ce, adjust stat us i m m ed iately li ke K -2s d o u nd er 8 C.F
. R. § 214. 2( k) ( 6) ( i i )
. Or, a s d iscussed, she m i ght s eek a n i mm i g r a ntv i s a thr o ugh he rmo th e r . Ne i the r8 U. S
. C. § 12 55 ( a) , no r8 U. S
. C. § 1 15 4( a) ( 1) ( A), s uppo r t 8 C. F
. R. § 245. 1( i ) ’ s re quir em ent that K
- 4s adj ust s ta tus only by way o fa r el at i o ns hi p t o the pe ti ti o ni ngc i ti ze n. 5 The executi ve bra nch cannotdeci de, byr ule o r by deci si on, to aba nd on a duty that Congr ess has del ega ted t o i t. See IN S v. Ca rdoza-Fon se ca , 48 0 U.S
. 42 1, 44 4- 45, 44 9- 50 (1987) (holding i nv ali d , un d er pron g on e of Che vron , a B I A i nt erp retation th at li m ited th e A ttor n e y G en eral’s d isc re tio nin w a y s c o n tr ar y t o th e w ill of C on gr es s); see a ls o Che vron , 467U .S. at 8 43 n .9. H er e, tr ad itio n al t oo ls o fs ta tu to r y c o ns truct i o n indi ca te tha t C ongr es s i ntended to gi ve K
- 4s l i ke A kr am the opportunity t o adj ust s tatus and j oin thei r parents in th e Un i ted S tat es. The r egul at i o n c o di fi ed at8 C. F
. R. § 2 45
. 1( i ) , a nd theN o. 12
- 3008 25

T h e B IA ’s op in io n re lie d al m o st e n tir el y o n 8 C .F .R . § 24 5 .1(i ). 6 H oweve r, a s i ngl e s en t en c e ne ar the e nd ofthe opi ni on s ug ge s t s t wo o the r po s s ibl e ba s e s f or its d e c i s i on : 8 U. S
. C. § 12 5 5 (d ) an d 8 C .F .R . § 1 2 4 5 .1(c )(6)(ii ). SeeA kr am , 25 I. & N
. D ec. at88 2. To the e xt en tthatthe BIA ’ s d ec i s i on al s o r el i ed o n th e s e p r o v i s i o n s , i t s d e c i s i o n wa s s t i l l mi s t a k e n . A s we h a ve alr eady disc uss ed at l ength, 8 U .S. C. § 1255( d) does notbar A k ram fro m ad justing statu s; it m erely requ i r e s A k ram to ad just statu s “a s a result of the m arr iag e” of he r p are nt . S i m ilarly , 8 C .F .R
. § 124 5.1(c) (6)( ii) p ro v id es tha t a K -4 m u st a d ju s t s t a t u s “ b a se d u p o n th e m a rr ia g e o f th e K -3 sp o u se .” A ccordingly, neither provisi on cate gorical ly prevents Ak ram from ad justing statu s. B I A de cision ap p lying it, b o th de ny A kram thatopp ortu ni ty . Be ca us e “C o ng r es s ha d a n int en ti o n o n the pr ec i se que sti o n a t i ss ue , tha t i nt en ti o n i s th e l aw a nd m ust be gi ven e ffect. ” Che vron , 4 6 7U
. S
. a t8 4 3 n . 9
. We ther ef or e ho l d that

— i nsof aras the y requir e K-4 s t o adj u st s ta tu s v i a a r el ati onshi p to a U.S
. ci ti zen instea d ofm er el y “ as a r esult ofthe m ar ri age ” o fthei r parents

— 8 C. F
. R. § 245.1(i ) a nd the BI A’s de ci si o n a ppl y i ng that rul e a re i nval i d. Because thi s ho l ding dispos es of 6 th e ca se , we ne ed no t addr es s Akr am’ s al te r na ti ve a r g um en t th at8 C .F.R . § 24 5.1 (i) is als o u n c on st itu tio n al. Tha t l ea ve s o nl y the que st i o n o fr el i ef. A kr am as k s us to hol d that s he m ay adj ust sta tu s in the m anner ofa K
- 2, w ith ou t filin g a nI-130
. See 8 C .F.R . § 21 4.2 (k)(6 )(ii). In the al ternati ve, she ask s us to hol d that she m ay ad j ust sta tus v i a a n I
- 130 fi l ed by her m oth er , w ho has now b ec om e a law fu l p er m an en t re sid en t. B u t o u r ro le is26 N o. 12
- 3008 to r ev i ew a g en cyde ci si o ns ; i t i s no t to di ct at e dec isi ons inth e firs t in st an c e. Se eGonz a les v
. Thom as , 54 7 U.S
. 18 3, 186 (2006 ) ( p e rc ur i am ); IN S v . Ven tura , 53 7 U.S
. 12 , 16 (2002) ( pe rc ur i am ); G hebrem edhin v. Ashcroft, 39 2 F
. 3d 2 41, 243-44 (7th C ir. 2004) (pe rc ur i am )
. Co ng r e s s v e ste d the Attorney Gener alwith the di scr eti on to ad j ust a n alie n ’s s ta tu s. See 8 U.S
. C. § 1 255( a)
. Tha t di scr eti on does not i ncl ud e the r igh t to deny adj ustm ent b ase d on a ru le th atis co n tr ar y t o t h e w i ll of C on gr es s. See C ardoza -Fonse ca , 480 U .S. at 4 49 -50 ; Suc ca r, 39 4 F
. 3d at 10. Bu t be yond that, we l eave it t o th e Attorney Gener al to de c i de whe the r, a nd ho w, Ak r a m wi l l b e ab l e to ad j u stst at u s.
III. C ON CLU SI ON W e G RANT A kr am ’s p et itio nfo r r ev iew , R EVER S E th e de c i s i o n o fthe B I A, a nd R EMA ND f o rpr o ce eding s co nsi st en t wi ththi s o pi ni o n.

7- 9- 13