FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T FEB RUARY 21, 2012 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 11 12 6 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 1 :1 0- cv -2 00 14 -DLG ERIKA MATHEW S, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us USCIS , MIAMI , DHS DEPARTMENT OF HO MELAND SECURITY, U.S. ATTO RNEY GENERAL, Defen da nt s- App el la nt s, U.S. ATTO RNEY’ S OFFIC E, Res po nd en t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ 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

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (Feb ru ary 21 , 20 12 ) Befo re CARNES, BAR KETT andANDERSON, Circu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM:The di stric t co urt g ran te d s umm ary jud gm en t i n fa vo r of Erik a Ma th ews on he r Adm in is tra ti ve Pro cedur e Actcla im ag ai ns t the U.S. Atto rn ey Gene ral , th e Dep artm en t o f Hom el an d S ecu rit y , andth e U.S. Cit iz en sh ip an d Immig rat io n Serv ic es (co ll ect iv el y , “ th e g ov ern m en t” ). Thatcla im fol lo wedth e d en ia l o f a v is a pe ti ti on Mat th ews ’ ad op ti ve fathe r ha d fi le d o n h er b eh al f. The g ov ern m en t ap pe al s, co nt en di ng th atth e d is tri ctco urt erredwhen itord eredth e Bo ardof Im m ig rat io n Ap pe al s t o h on ora st at e co urt’s nun c p ro tu nc m od ifi cat io n o f an ad op ti on da te be cau se th e d is tri ctco urt d idno t g iv e p ro pe r de fere nc e to th e BIA’s in te rp ret at io n o f th e rel ev an t i m m ig rat io n s ta tu te . I. Erik a Ma th ews was b orn i n P eruon Jan uary 28 , 19 87 . She en te redth e Uni te d S ta te s wi th he r bi ol og ic al pa ren ts as ano ni m mig ran t v is it orin19 93 . In 19 99 animm ig rat io n ju dg e o rd eredMat he ws an d h er b io lo gi cal pa ren ts de po rte d to Peru , andin20 02 th e BIA af firm edth atde ci si on . Later i n 2 00 2, M athe ws’
m at ern al auntan d h er Un it edSta te s ci ti zen hu sb an d, J effr ey Ric h, fi le d ape ti ti on in Flo rid a co urt t o t erm in at e th e p aren ta l ri gh ts of M athe ws’ bi ol og ic al pa ren ts

2pe nd in g a do pt io n, wh ic h t he Flo rid a co urt g ran te d o n J anua ry 22 , 20 03 . The Fl or id a co urt en te reda fi na l ju dg m en t o f ad op ti on on Marc h 2 7, 2 00 3. 1 In20 05 Ric h fi le d aFo rm I-1 30 Pet it io n fo r Ali enRel at iv e o n M athe ws’ be ha lf. In20 08 USCIS d en ie d t ha t p et it io n, fi nd in g t ha t b ecau se th e fi na l jud gm en t o f ad op ti on oc cu rredaft er Ma th ews ’ si xt een thbi rth da y , sh e d idno t qu al ify as Ri ch ’s chi ldun de r 8 U.S.C . § 1 10 1( b) (1 )(E)(i ). Ric h fi le d ano ti ce o f ap pe al to th e BIA, n ot in g t ha t h e was ap pl y in g fo r a nun c p ro tunc ord er s o t ha t th e fi na l ad op ti on da te wou ldbe am en de d t o ada te be fo re Ma th ews ’ si xt een th bi rth day . A Flo rid a co urt g ran te d t ha t ap pl ic at io n, am en di ng th e d at e o f th e fi na l jud gm en t o f ad op ti on to Jan ua ry 23 , 20 03 , fiv e d ay s b efo re Ma th ews ’ si xt een th bi rth day . Desp it e th e nun c p ro tu nc da te ch an ge , th e BIA af firm edth e USCIS ’ fin di ng th atMat he ws was no t Ri ch ’s chi ldun de r § 1 10 1( b) (1 )(E)(i ) be cau se Ric h ha d n otad op te d M at th ews be fo re h er s ix te en th bi rth da y . The BI A rel ie d o n t wo of it s p rio r publ is he d d eci si on s i n re ach in g t ha t co nc lu si on . See Ma tt er o f Drig o, 18 I. & N. Dec. 22 3 (B IA 19 82 ); M at te r of Cari ag a, 15 I. & N. Dec. 71 6 (B IA 19 76 ).
Under

Florida law, adoption is complete upon e ntry of the fina l judgment of

adoption. 1 See In re Amendments to the Fla . Supreme Court Approve d Family L aw F orms, 20 So. 3d 173, 302 (F la. 2009) (“ This Final Judgment of Adoption cr eate s a re lationship between the adoptee (s) and Petitioner and a ll relatives of Petitioner that would have existed if the adoptee (s) wa s (wer e) a blood desc endant of

the Petitioner, born within wedlock, e ntitled to all rights and privilege s there of, and subjec t to all obligations of a c hild being bor n to Petiti oner.” ). 3Mat he ws the n fi le d aco m pl ai ntinfed eral di st ric t co urt re qu es ti ng rel ie f
un de r th e APA. She all eg edth atth e USCIS ’ act io ns were “ arb it rary, capri ci ou s, anab us e o f di sc ret io n, o r ot he rwis e unl awfu l” be cau se th e ag en cy fai le d t o h on or th e Fl or id a st at e co urt o rd er tha t ch an ge d t he ad op ti onda te . After c ro ss -m ot io ns fo r su m m ary jud gm en t, the di st ric t co urt ag reed . It g ran te d M athe ws’ m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t, “ rev ers e[d ] th e BIA’s d eci si on ,” an d re m an de d the m atte r to th e BIA wi th in st ru ct io ns forth e b oa rdto gi ve de fere nc e to th e nun c p ro tunc ad op ti on da te . This ap pe al fol lo wed
. II. W e rev ie w de n ov o adi st ric t co urt’s g ran t o f su m m ary jud gm en t. W ars haue r v. So li s, 5 77 F.3d13 30 , 13 35 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ). Summ ary jud gm en t i s ap pr op ria te “ if the m ov an t s ho ws tha t the re i s n o g enui ne di sp ut e as to an y
m at eri al factan d t he m ov an t i s en ti tl edto jud gm en t as a m at te r of law.” Fe d. R. Ci v. P. 5 6( a). Und er d e n ov o re vi ew, we de fer t o t he BIA’s in te rp ret at io n o f an
am bi gu ou s o r si le ntst atut e itadm in is te rs un le ss th atin te rp ret at io n i s un reas on ab le . See Ca st il lo -Ari as v. U.S. Att orne y Gen
. , 44 6 F .3d11 90 , 11 95 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 6) ; s ee al so Ch ev ro n, U.S.A., Inc . v. Natur al Res . Def. Co un ci l, In c., 46 7 U.S. 8 37 , 84 4, 1 04 S.Ct . 27 78 , 27 82 (19 84 ); C he n v . U.S. Atto rn ey Gen., 5 65

4F.3 d 8 05 , 80 9 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 9) . “ The de gr ee o f de fere nc e is esp eci al ly greatinth e

fie ldof i m

m ig rat io n.” Ch en , 56 5 F .3dat 8 09 (qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d)
. Und er the APA, we rev ie w age nc y de ci si on s t o d et erm in e if th ey are

“ arb it rary, capri ci ou s, an ab us e o f di sc ret io n, o r ot he rwis e n otinacco rd an ce wi th la w.” 5 U.S.C. § 70 6( 2) (A). Thatst an da rd“pr ov id es th e rev ie win g c ou rt wi th
ve ry li m it eddi sc ret io n t o re ve rs e anag en cy de ci si on ,” W ars haue r, 57 7 F .3dat 13 35 (qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) , andis “ ex ceed in gl y de fere nt ia l,” Fu ndfor Ani m al s, In c. v. Ri ce, 8 5 F .3d53 5, 5 41 (11 th Cir . 19 96 ). III. A Uni te d S ta te s ci ti zen m ay fil e a p et it io n s eek in g t o c on fer i m m ig rat io n st atus up on a “ ch il d,” as t ha t t erm is de fin edun de r imm ig rat io n l aw. 8 U.S.C. § 1 15 4( a)(1 )(A)(i ). A “ ch il d” in cl ud es “ a ch il d a do pt edwhi le un de r th e ag e o f si xt een y ears if t he ch il d h as be eninth e le ga l cu st od y of, a ndha s re si de d wi th , th e ad op ti ng paren t o r pa ren ts forat l eas t two years.” Id. § 11 01 (b )(1 )(E)(i ). A U.S. ci ti zen m ay

fil e a v is a p et it io n o n b eh al f of anad op te d s onor d au gh te r “ if t he ad op ti on to okpl ace b efo re the be ne fic iary ’s si xt een th bi rth da y .” 8 C.F .R. § 20 4.2 (d )(2 )(v ii ). It i s the pe ti ti on er’s b ur de n t o e st ab li sh by a prep on de ran ce o f th e ev id en ce tha t the be ne fic ia ry is ful ly qua li fie d fo r th e v is a. 8 U.S.C. § 13 61
.

5The BIA h as ad dr es se d the is su es of r etro act iv e ad op ti on an d n un c p ro tu nc

am en dm en t o f ad op ti on da te s. InMat te r of Cari ag a, 15 I. & N. Dec. 71 6, 7 17 (BIA 1 97 6) , th e BIA g av e a l it eral in te rp ret at io n t o t he ad op ti on ag e res tri ct io n i n 8 C .F.R. § 2 04 .2(d )(2 )(v ii ) an d re qu ire d tha t the “ actof a do pt io n m us t o ccu r” be fo re the ch il d re ach edth e st atut ory ag e. The B IA de te rm in edth atCo ng res s’ in te ntwas t o a vo idfrau du le ntad op ti on s, wh ic h warran te d astric t re ad in g o f th e ag e res tri ct io n. Se e id . at 7 16 –1 7. Th us , des pi te a retro act iv e ad op ti on de cree , th e BIA h el d t ha t an ad op ti ve rel at io ns hi p was no t cr eat edforpu rp os es of imm ig rat io n l aw whe n t he “be ne fic ia ry was a do pt ed
. . . atag e n in et een .” Id . at 71 7. In Mat te r of

Drig o, 1 8 I. & N. Dec. 22 3 (B IA 19 82 ), th e BIA ap pl ie d C ari ag a an d s pe ci fic al ly rejectednunc pro tu nc ba ck da ti ng of a do pt io n d ecre es . Id. at 22 3– 24
. Here, the BIA fo ll owe d i ts ownpre ced en t an d i nt erp ret ed8 U.S.C. § 1 10 1( b) (1 )(E)(i ) to requi re Ma th ews ’ actua l ad op ti on to ha ve oc cu rredbe fo re he r si xt een th bi rth da y

reg ard le ss of t he nu nc pro tu nc am en dm en t o f he r ad op ti on da te . Becau se th atin te rp ret at io n i s re as on ab le , th e d is tri ctco urt s ho ul d h av e de ferr edto itan d c on cl ud edth atth e BIA’s d eci si on to de ny Math ews a vi sawas no t arbi tra ry , cap ric io us , an abu se of d is cret io n, o r ot he rwis e n otinacco rd an ce with l aw.
6Acco rd in gl y , we rev ers e th e d is tri ctco urt’s g ran t o f su m m ary jud gm en t t o Mat he ws an d re m an d wi th in st ru ct io ns forth e d is tri ctco urt t o g ran t the go ve rn m en t’s m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t. REVERSED AND REMANDED.

7