Judge De nnis concur s in the jud gmen t only. * 

### INTHE U NI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 60277

N A S H ID AM U S H T A Q , P e tit io n e r ,
ve r s us E R IC H . H O L D E R , J R ., U .S . A tt o r n e y G e n e r a l , R esp on d en t
.

P et i t i on f

or R evi ew of

an O rder of th e B o a r d o f Im m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls

N o. A 43 9 68 0 81

B ef ore R E AV L E Y , SM ITH , an d D E N N IS, C i rcui t Ju dg es . * JE R R YE

. SM ITH , C i rcui t Ju dg e:
T h e U n ite d S ta te s s o u gh t t o rev ok e N a sh i d a M u sh ta q ’ s p a s s p o r t a n d b e g in
r em ovalpr oc ee di ngs bec ause she di d nothave a val i d i m m i gr ant vi sa . M usht aq a p p lie d fo r a § 2 1 2 (k ) w a iv e r , b u t th e im m ig r a tio n ju d g e (“I J ”) d e n ie d th e a p p lic at i o n, a nd t he Boa r d o f I m m i gr at i o n Appe al s ( “ BI A” ) af f i r m e d. W e de ny M us hUnited States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D September

23, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 60277

Seegeneral lyC

h ev ro nU

.S.A

. v. Nat ’l

Res. De f. C ou n ci l , 46 7 U .S. 83 7, 8 42-4 3 (1 984) 1 (“Whe n a c ourtreviews an agency’s co nstructionof thestatute whichitadministe rs, it is co n- (c ontinu ed

.. .) 2 t a q ’ s p e t i t i o n f

o r r e v i e w.
I

. M u sh ta q w as born i n P ak i st an i n 198 4. H er father entered t h e U n i t ed St at es i n 1985 as a v i si t orand bec am e a r es i dent w hen he m ar r i ed an Am er i c an c itiz e n . A t a g e 9 , M u s h ta q c a m e t o t h e U n ite d S ta te s a n d g a in e d d e r iv a tiv e cit izensh i p t h rough h er father. H er i m m i grati on app l i cat i on fal sel y st ated t h at her
m ot h er, w h o sti l llived in P ak i st an , h ad d i ed i n 1 985
. A t age 15 , M u shtaq f i l ed a vi sa appl i c at i on f

orherhusband i n w hi c h she i nacc urat el y s t at ed ag ai n t hat her m ot her had di ed i n 1985. A f t er M u shtaq an d h er t h ree s i bl i n gs ha d su cces sf u l l y en t ered t h e U n i t ed St at e s a nd h ad b e c o m e c i t i z e ns , he r fat he r divo r c e d hi s Am e r i c an w i fe . M us ht aq’ s m ot h er t h en enter e d th e U n i t ed S t ates u n der a fal se nam e an d m arri ed M u s h t a q ’s fa t h e r . I m m ig r a t io n a u t h o r it ie s n o t i c e d th is fr a u d , a n d M u s h t a q ’s
m ot h er an d father even t u al l y pl ead ed gu i l t y of conspi racy an d n atural i zati on f r aud a nd h ad t he i r c i t i z e ns hi p r e vo ke d. T h e g ov ern m en t th en i n i ti a ted p roce ed i n gs a ga i n st M u sh taq , see k i n g to
rev ok e h er cit i ze n sh i p , an d be gin rem ov a lpr oce ed i n gs . M u sh taq sou gh t a § 2 1 2 (k ) w a iv e r o n th e g r o u n d th a t s h e s h o u ld n o t b e re m o v e d b e c a u s e s h e d id not know of

heri nadm i ss i bi l i t y. The I J and B I A deni ed r el i ef on t he gr ound t hat h er parents’kn ow l edg e of her i n ad m i ssibi l i t y i s i m pu t ed to h er.

II. I n r e ga r d t o t he s t and ar d o f r e vi e w , bo t h pa r t i e s ar gue t hatw e m us t g r ant t he BI A’ s de c i s i o n C h evron deference. Arevi ew i n g court, how ever, m ay rej ect 1N o. 08- 60277

(...continu ed) 1 front ed with two questions. First, alway s, is the que stionwhether Con gre ss ha s dire ctlyspoken to the preci se question at issue. I f th e intent of Con gre ss is clear, that is the end of th e matter; for the court, a s wellas the agency , must giveeffe ct tothe u namb iguou sly expressed inte nt of C ongress. If, however, the court det ermin es C ongress h as not directlyaddressed the preci se question at issue, the court does not simply impose its o wn co nstructiononth e statute , as would be nece ssary in the abse nce of an administrative inte rpretation

. R ath er, if th e statute is sil ent or a mbiguou s with respect to the specific i ssue, the questionfor the court i s wheth er the agency’s answer i s ba sed ona permissib le construction of th e statute .” (foo tnot es om itte d) ). See generally Sk idmore v. S wift &C o. , 32 3 U .S. 13 4, 1 40 (194 4) (“Th e wei ght of [an 2 agency’s’] j udgment in a particular case will depen d upon the thoroughne ss evident in its c onsi de ration , th e v ali dityo f it s r ea so nin g , it s c on si st encywithe arlie r a n d late r pronoun ce me nts , a n d allth os e fact or s whichgive itp ow ert o pe rs u a de , if l a ckin gp ow ert o co ntrol .”). See Quinch ia v. U

.S. Att y. Gen ., 55 2 F.3 d 125 5, 125 8 (11th Cir. 200 8) (statin g that an 3 unpub lis hed BIA deci sio n that doe s not rely on BIA or cir cuitcourtprec ede nt doe s notreceive Ch evrond ef

er ence); Rot imi v. Gonzales , 47 3 F .3d 5 5, 5 7-58(2d Cir. 2 007) (deci ding th at an unpublishe d B IA

decisionth at d oe s no t re lyonpre cedent forit s definition of acontested term d oe s n ot receive Ch evrond e f e r e n c e , b e c au s eiti sno t“p r o m ul g at e du n d e r[th ea ge n c y’ s ] authorityto makerule s carryin gth e fo rc e of l aw” (inte rn al qu ot ationmark s o mitt ed)) ; GarciaQuintero v. Gonzales , 455 F.3d100 6, 1012- 14 (9t h Cir. 2006) (opi ning that an unp ublis hed BIA decision does not h ave th e fo rce of l aw and ther eforedoe s no t re ceive Ch evron de fe re n ce). 3 e v e n a n a g r e e d s ta n d a r d

. S ee Un i t ed S t ate s v. V on t st een , 950 F. 2d 1086, 1091 ( 5t h Ci r . 1 99 2) ( e n b anc )

. “ I f ne i t he r pa r t y s ugg e s t s t he a ppr o pr i at e s t and ar d, th e review i n g cou rt m u st d eterm i n e t h e pro p er st a n d a rd on i ts ow n . ” I d. ( c i t ation s o m itted ). The BI A af

f i r m e d t he I J’ s o r de r i n a n unp ubl i s he d, s i ngl e - j udg e de c i s i o n. Th r ee cour t s have hel d thatsuch deci si ons are gi ven o nl y S ki d m ore deference 2 b e ca u se of Uni t e d St at e s v . Me ad , 5 33 U

. S

. 2 18 ( 200 1)

. O n e courtsi n ce Me ad 3 h as st i l lan al yzed these opi n i on s un der C h evron d eference so l on g as t h e deci si on “p r o v id e [s ] rea son i n g . . . to w h i ch w e ca n de fer. ” S ee G u t n i k v. G on zal es , 469 F. 3d 6 83 , 690 ( 7t h C i r . 200 6)

. W e nee d notr e s o l ve t hi s q ue s t i o n, b e c aus e M us ht a q ’ s cla im fai l s un der ei t h er s t an da rd. Th u s, w e revi ew i t un der t h e l essd e fe r e n tia l S ki d m ore s t and ar d.N o. 08- 60277

4 III. M u shtaq requ est ed a § 21 2( k) w ai ver, codi f i ed at 8 U

. S

. C

. § 1182 ( k), w h i ch st ates: Any a l i e n, i nad m i s s i bl e f r o m t he U ni t e d St at e s u n de r pa r ag r ap h ( 5) (A ) or ( 7) (A ) ( i) of

subsect ion (a ) of

t h i s s ect i on , w h o i s i n possessi on of an i m m i gran t vi sa m ay, i f ot h erw i se ad m i ssibl e, be ad m i t t ed in th e d is c r e tio n o f th e A tt o r n e y G e n e r a l if th e A tt o r n e y G e n e r a l is sa t i sf i ed t hat i nadm i ss i bi l i t y w as not know n t o, and c oul d nothave b e e n a s c e r t a i n e d b y t h e e x e r c i s e o f r e a s o n a b l e d i l i g e n c e b y , t h e i mm i gran t bef

ore t h e t i m e of

dep art u re of

t h e vesselor ai rcr af t f rom t he l as t po r t out s i de t he U ni t e d St at e s and out s i de f o r e i gn c o nt i guous t er r i t or y or , i n t he c as e of an i m m i gr ant c om i ng f rom fore i gn conti gu ou s t erri t ory, bef ore the t i m e of the i m m i gran t ’ s app l i cat i on f o r a dm i s s i o n. M u shtaq bel i eves she coul d not h ave k n ow n abou t her i n ad m i ssibi l i t y becau se she w as a m i n or, bu t t h e I J an d B IAi m pu t ed h er parents’kn ow l edg e t o her. Pr e vi o us i m m i gr at i o n de c i s i o ns ha ve i m put e d t he knowl e dg e o f a pa r e nt t o a c hi l d. I n S e n i c a v . I NS , 16 F. 3 d 1 0 1 3 , 1 0 1 5 ( 9t h C i r . 1994) , t he c our t w as fa ce d w ith th e q u e stio n w h e th e r “th e B IA [w a s] co rr e ct in im p u tin ga p a r e n t ’s k n o w le d g e to a c h ild in c o n s id e r in g w h e th e r th e ch ild h a d k n o w le d g e o f h e r in e lig ib il it y fo r a d m is s io n t o t h e U n it e d S t a t e s .” T h e c o u r t c o n c lu d e d th a t th e B I A ’s d e c is io n “w a s n o t a d e p a r t u r e fr o m it s p r e v io u s p r a c t ic e o f i m p u t in ga p a r e n t ’s st ate of m i n d, or fai l u re to reasona bl y i n vest i gate, to a n un em an ci pa t ed m i n or ch i l d

. ” I

d. a t 10 16
. I t al s o no t e d t he go ve r nm e nt ’ s ar gum e ntt hatr e ac hi ng t he opp osi t e deci si on w ou l d m ean t h at “ every m i n or c h i l d en t eri n g t h e U n i t ed S t ates
w o u ld a u to m a tic a lly b e e lig ib le fo r a § 2 1 2 (k ) w a iv e r ,” a n d s u c h a r e s u lt w a s illo g ic a l. I

d. a t 1 01 5. Thus , i t s us t ai ne d t he BI A’ s de c i s i o n. A t le a s t o n e B IA d e c is io n h a s a ls o im p u te d p a r e n ts ’k n o w le d g e to th e ir ch i l d re n . In Matt er of Zam ora , 17 I. & N

. D ec. 395 ( 198 0) , t h e B IAconf ronted
a c as e i n whi c h t he pet i t i o ne r ha d b e c o m e a l awf ulpe r m ane ntr e s i de ntw hi l e he
w as a m i no r . H i s fam i l y, ho w e ve r , r e t ur ne d t o M e xi c o , a ba ndo ni ng t he i r l awf ulN o. 08- 60277

The parti es deb ate wheth er aregion al commission er’s decision is precede ntial. We 4 do not n eed to r eachth at issue, because this case does not support Mushta q’s argument. 5 p e r m a n e n t re s id e n t st a tu s . Id

. a t 3 9 5
. T h e p eti ti on er, a s a m i n or, retu rn ed w i th h i s paren t s. W h en he tr i ed to re- en t er t h e U n i t ed S t ates, he w as excl u ded becau se he t oo w as foun d t o h ave aba n don ed h i s l aw f u lperm an en t res i den t st atus. I d. at 39 6
. T h e B IAaff i rm ed tha t de ci sion , n oti n g th a t “ th e inten t of the pa ren ts
w i th re ga rd to th eir d ep a rtu re . . . i s i m p u ted to t h e a ccom p a n yin g ch i l d

. ” I d. at 39 7. Bot h S enic a a nd Zam orapr o vi de s upp o r t f o r t he BI A’ s de c i s i o n. M us ht aq ar gue s t hatt he BI A’ s de c i s i o n i n Ma t t e rof D- C- , 7 I

. & N

. D ec. 525 7 ( 195 7) , dem on st rat es t h at h er pa rents’ kn ow l edg e shou l d n ot be i m pu t ed t o h er. In t h at case, t h e regi on al com m i ssi on er exam i n ed w h et h er t w o m i n ors 4
w e r e e lig ib le fo r a w a iv e r s im ila r to § 2 1 2 (k ) w a iv e r . I d. at 525

- 26. Th e m i n ors had e nt e r e d t he U ni t e d St at e s at a ge s 1 6 and 1 3 and di d no t kno w t hatt he i r e nt ry w as i l l egal. Th e regi on alcom m i ssi on er det erm i n ed that t h e m i n ors coul d n ot h a v e a s c e r ta in e d th e ir ille g a lity , so th e y w e r e s till e lig ib le fo r th e w a iv e r . A lt hough t hi s dec i si on i s fac t ual l y s i m i l art o o ur c as e, t her e i s no i ndi c at i on t hat t he g o ve r nm e nt e ve n a r gue d i m put at i o n, s o t hati s s ue w as no t a ddr e s s e d, a nd t hatde c i s i o n do e s no t b i nd t he BI A i n i t s l at e r de c i s i o ns a nd d o e s no t r e qui r e us t o overt u rn i t s det erm i n ati on here. M u shtaq al so poi n t s t o S i ngh v. G on zal es , 451 F

. 3d 400 , 409

- 10 (6t h C i r. 20 06 ) , i n whi c h t he c o ur t f o und t hatt he BI A c o ul d no t i m put e t he f r aud ul e nt
c o nduc t of

a par e nt t o a m i no r chi l d. The c o ur t e xp l i c i t l y di s t i ngu i s he d S enic a and Zam ora , how eve r , c onc l udi ng t hat “ i m put i ng f r audul entc onduct

. . . and an i nt e nt t o de c e i ve . . . i s a farcr y f r o m i m put i ng kno w l e dg e o f i ne l i gibi l i t y f

o r a dm i ssion

. ” I

d. at407. F in a lly , M u s h t a q a r g u e s th a t t h e S u p r e m e C o u r t h a s co n s is te n tly h e ld t hat a par ent ’ s know l edge c annot be i m put ed t o a m i norch i l d. The c as es t hatN o. 08- 60277

See Mut . L ife I

ns. Co. v. Hilto n-Green , 2 4 1 U .S

. 6 1 3 , 6 2 2 ( 1 9 1 6). 5 SeeI n t ’l U n io n, Un ited Auto. , Ae ro sp ace &A gri c. I mp le me n tW

ork ers of

A m. v. 6 Joh nsonC

ont rols, In c. , 4 9 9U .S

. 1 8 7 , 2 1 3&n .3(Whit e, J ., c oncurrin g). 6 she c i t es , h ow eve r , dealw i t h agenc y and negl i genc e i n t or t l aw , noti m m i gr a- 5 6 t i o n; t he y ar e no t he l pf ult o o urde t e r m i nat i o n. W e t he r e f

o r e a gr e e w i t h S enic a a n d co n c lu d e th a t t h e B IA ’ s d e c is io n in Zam orashow s t h at t h e I J an d B IAw ere rig h t t o i m pu t e M u shtaq’ s paren t s’ k n o wl e d g e t o h e r . T h e p e t i t i o n f o r r e v i e w i s DE NI ED

.