2010 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit
10-1-2010 

# R .E . L -P . v . Atty Ge n U SA
P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 09-1960

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2010 D e c i sion s b y an authori z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du
. Re c omme nde d C it at ion

" R .E . L -P . v . Atty Ge n U SA" (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 348. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/348P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

___________ N o. 09- 1520 N o. 09- 1760 N o. 09- 1960

___________ E U D U L IO D E L E O N -O C H O A , a /k /a R o g e r R e y e s -O liv a , a/k/ a R ogerA r m ando R ey es - B ol i var , a/k/ a R ogerA r m ando

R e y e s -O liv a ,

Pet i t i onerN o. 09- 1520

v. A T T O R N E Y G E N E R A L O F T H E U N IT E D S T A T E S ,
R es pondent

___________ EUFEM I A FLO RES- DO M I NG UEZ; AR ELY

M AGDAL E NA R IV E R A -F L O R E S ; E L ID A Y A M IL E T R IV E R A -F L O R E S ,
Pet i t i oner s N o. 09- 17602 v . A T T O R N E Y G E N E R A L O F T H E U N IT E D S T A T E S ,
R es pondent

___________ R .E . L -P ,
Pet i t i onerN o. 09- 1960

v.
A T T O R N E Y G E N E R A L O F T H E U N IT E D S T A T E S ,
R es pondent

___________ O n Pet i t i on forR evi ew of O r der s of the B o a rd o f Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls ( A gencyN o. A 098- 501- 296) ( A gencyN o. A 094- 902- 120/ 1/ 2) ( A gencyN o. A 094- 934- 034) I m m i gr at i on J udge: M ar gar etR ei chenbe r g ( N os . 09- 1520, 09- 1760)3 I m m i gr at i on J udge: A nni e S. G ar cy( N o. 09- 1960)

___________ A r gued on J ul y13, 2010

___________ B efor e: FU E N T E S, A L D I SE R T and R O T H , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on Fi l ed: O ct ober1, 2010) DOUGL AS S

. E AKE L E Y, E S Q. ( AR GUE D) M AUR E E N A. RU ANE , E S Q. CA RL M
. GR E E NF E L D, E S Q. KR I S T I N A. M UI R, E S Q. LO W EN STEI N SA N D LER PC 65 L i vi ngs t on A venue R os el and, N J 07068 A t t orney s forPet i t i onerE udul i o D e Leon- O choa RE X C HE N, E S Q. ( AR GUE D) CA T HOL I C C HAR I T I E S OF T HE AR CH DI OC E S E OF NEWA RK 976 B r oad St r eet N ew ark, N J 07102 A t t orneyforPet i t i oner s E ufemi a Fl or es - D om i nguez, A r el yR i ver a- Fl or es , and El i da R i ver a- Fl or es AYODE L E GANS AL L O, E S Q. ( AR GUE D) HI AS AND C OUNC I L M I GR AT I ON S E RV I CE OF P H IL A D E L P H IA4 2100 A r ch Str eet Phi l adel phi a, PA 19103 A t t orne yfo rPe t i t i on e rR. E. L- PT ONY WE S T , E S Q. A s s i s t antA t t orneyG ener al , C i vi l D i vi s i on DOUGL AS E
. GI NS BU RG , E S Q. E M I L Y ANNE RA DF OR D, E S Q. T E RR I J
. S CA DR ON, E S Q. A ssist an t D ir ec tors AVI VA L

. P OC Z T E R, E S Q. ( AR GUE D) GR E G D. M AC K, E S Q. S e n io r L iti g a tio n C o u n se l DE RE K C

. J UL I US , E S Q. T r i al A t t orney J AM E S A. HUNOL T , E S Q. GAR Y J
. NE WKI RK , E S Q. O ffi ce of I m m i gr at i on L i t i gat i on C i vi l D i vi s i on U
. S. D epart m entof J us t i ce P. O

. B ox 878, B en Fr ankl i n St at i on W as hi ngt on, D
. C

. 20044 A t t orney s forR es pondent

___________T he B oar d had j ur i s di ct i on u n d er 8 C

. F. R
. §§ 1 1 0 0 3
. 1 (b)(3 ) & 1 2 4 0
. 1 5
. W e h av e j u ri sd ict ion o v er f inal o rde rs o f re m o v al pu rsua n t t o 8 U
. S

. C

. § 1 2 5 2 (a)(1). 5 O P I N I O N

___________
A L D I SE R T , C i r cui tJ udge. I n th i s c o n s o l i d a t e d a p p e a l , P e t i t i o n e r s E u d u l i o De L eon -O cho a, A rel yand E l i da R i vera-F lores , E ufem i a F l oresD om i nguez, and R

. E
. L

- P- pet i t i on forr evi ew of the B oar d of Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls’ (“ B I A ” o r “ B o a rd ” ) d e n ial o f th e ir ap p li ca ti o n s fo r T em p o rary P rotec ted S tatu s (“T P S ”) f o r fa il u re t o personal l ys at i s fythe s t atut oryr equi r ement s of “c ont i nuous re s id e n c e ” a n d “ c o n tin u o u s p h y s ic a l p r e s e n c e .” 8 U .S .C . § 1 1254a. O n appea l , Pet i t i oner s cont end that theyful fi l l the s ta tu to ry re q u ir e m e n t o f “ c o n tin u o u s re s id e n c e , ” 8 U .S .C . § 1254a( c) ( 1) ( A ) ( i i ) , vi a i m put at i on of thei rpar ent s ’ r es i dence

. P eti ti o n e rs ad d it ion all yco n tend that theysati sfythe s tatu tory re q u ir e m e n t o f

“ c o n tin u o u s p h y s ic a l p re s e n c e ,” 8 U .S .C . § 1254a( c) ( 1) ( A ) ( i ) , beca us e the s t atut ory t erm “most r ece nt des i gnat i on” r i ght ful l yi s r ead t o encompas s T PS ext ens i ons as w el l as desi gn at i on s. W e dis agree on bo th co un ts. B ecause Pet i t i oner s fai l t o m eetthe r equi r emen ts of “c ont i nuous reside n ce ” a n d “c o n ti n u o u s p h y sical pre s e n ce , ” the yare sta tu to rilyin e lig ib le f

o r T P S . F o r th e f

o llo w in g re a so n s, w e w illT h e G o v ernmentar gues , i n the pet i t i on forr evi ew of 2 Fl or es - D o m ing u ez, etal

. , thatw e s houl d di s m i s s thi s cas e for lack o f ju ri sd ict ion b ec au se th e q u esti o n w h ethe r a p are n t’ s res i den cy can be i m pu t ed for pu rposes of t he T P S program i s a nonj u s t i ci abl e pol i t i cal ques t i on. C ur i ous l y , the G overnm ent d o es n o t m a k e th is argu m en t i n D e L eo n -O ch o a a n d L -P -’s p e tit io n s f

o r re v iew . W e d e ter m in e th a t th e re is n o m e rit to th is a rg u m e n t. O rig in a llyth e A tto rn e yG e n e ra l w a s e m p o w e re d to 3 des i gnat e a f

or ei g n s t at e forthe TP S pr ogr am. Pur s uantt o the H omel a nd Se c ur i tyA c tof 20 02 , the a dmi ni s tr a t i on of the TPS pr ogr am w as t r ans ferr ed t o the D epart m entof H om el and Secur i ty . H om el and Secur i ty A ctof 2002, Pub. L
. N o. 107- 296, 1 1 6 S ta t. 2 1 3 5 ; s e e C e rv a n te s v . H o ld e r, 5 9 7 F .3 d 2 2 9 , 2 3 1 n .2 6 d e n yr e v i e w. 2 I. T empora r yPr ot ect ed St atus i s author i zed bySect i on 244 o f th e Im m i g r a t i o n a n d N a tio n a lity A c t ( “ IN A ” ). 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 4 a . It p e rm its e lig ib le n a tio n a ls o f a f o re ig n sta te to t empora r i l yr emai n i n and w or k i n the U ni t ed S tat es w hi l e the s t a t e i s d e s i g n a t e d b yth e TPS p r o g r a m. I d

. Th e At t o rn ey G ener al , “af

t er cons ul t at i on w i th appr opr i at e agenc i es o f the G overnm ent , ” m ayi s s ue a TPS des i gnat i on w i th r es pectt o a for ei gn s t at e undercert ai n ci r cumst ance s s uch as ongoi ng arm ed confl i ct, n at ur al di s as t er , orothercondi t i ons pr event i ng s afe r eturn of al i ens . I d. § 1254a( b) ( 1)

. “Ther e i s no j udi ci al r evi ew 3(4th C ir

. 2 0 1 0 ). 7 of anydet erm i nat i on of the A t t orneyG ener al w i th r es pectt o the des i gnat i on, ort erm i nat i on orext ens i on of a desi gnat i on, of a f o r e i g n s t a t e u n d e rth i s s u b s e c t i on . ” I d

. § 1 2 5 4 a ( b ) ( 5 ) ( A)

. By s t atut e, al i ens ar e el i gi bl e for T empora ry Pr ot ect ed St atus i f they ar e nat i onal s of a s t at e des i gnat ed under§ 1254a( b) ( 1) and they m eetthe fo l l ow i ng requi rem ents :

(i) th e a lien h a s b e e n c o n tin u o u sly phy s i cal l y pr es ent i n the U ni t ed S t at es s i nce the ef

fec t i ve dat e of the m os tr ece nt d e sig n a tio n o f

th a t sta te; ( i i ) the a li en has cont i nuous l yr es i ded in the U ni t ed St at es s i nce s uch dat e as the A tto rn e yG e n e ra l m a yd e sig n a te; ( i ii ) the al i en i s admi s s i bl e as an i m m i gr ant , exce p tas otherw i s e pr ovi ded und er par agr aph ( 2) ( A ) , and i s not i n el i gi bl e fort empora rypr ot ect ed s t atus underpar agr aph ( 2) ( B ) ; and (i v) t o the ext entand i n a mannerw hi ch the A t t orney G ener al es t abl i s hes , the al i en r egi s t er s for the t empora ry pr ot ect ed s t atus underthi s s ect i on dur i ng a r egi s tr at i on p e ri o d o f n o t le s s th a n 1 8 0 d a y s .P u rsua n t t o 8 U
. S

. C

. § 1 2 5 4 a(c )(4): 4 ( 4) T r eatm entof br i ef, cas ual , and i nnocentdepartur es and cert ai n o ther absences ( A ) Forpurpos es of p ar agr aphs ( 1) ( A ) ( i ) and ( 3) ( B ) , an al i en s hal l notbe cons i der ed t o h ave f ai l ed t o m ai nt ai n cont i nuous p h y sic a l p re se n c e in th e U n ited S tate s b yv irtu e o f b rie f , ca su a l, a n d in n o c e n t ab se n c e s f ro m th e U n ited S tate s, w ith o u t r e g a rd to w h e th e r su c h absenc es w ere a u th o riz e d b yth e A tto rn e yG e n e ra l. ( B ) Forpurpos es of par agr aph ( 1) ( A ) ( i i ) , an al i en sh all n otbe cons i der ed t o have f

ai l ed t o m ai nt ai n cont i nuous r es i den c e i n the U ni t ed St at es byr eas on of a br i ef, cas ual , and i nnocentabs ence des cr i bed i n s ubpar agr aph ( A ) ordue me rely t o a br i ef 8 I d. § 1254a( c) ( 1) ( A ) ( emphasi s added)

. Pur s uantt o § 1254a( c) ( 2) , i n the det erm i nat i on of an al i en’ s admi s s i bi l i tyfor purpos es of r equi r ement ( i i i ) , the A t t orney G ener al m ayw ai ve cert ai n p rovi si on s of s ect i on 11 82 (a) for hu m anit ari an p urposes, to a ss u re f

a m ilyu n ityo r fo r oth e r p u b lic in ter e st p u rp o se s, w ith the exc ept i on of ce r t ai n s ect i on s relat i ng t o cr i m i nal s , drug o f f e n se s, a n d n a tio n a l se c u rity . B yth e ter m s o f th e sta tu te, th is wai v e r p r o v i s i o n d o e s n o t a p p l y t o th e r e q u i r e me n t s of co n ti n u o u s reside n ce an d p h y sical pre sen ce . Id. § 1 2 5 4 a(c )(2). T he TP S st atut e i ns truct s that br i ef, cas ual , and i nnocent d e p a rtu re s g e n e ra lly d o n o t e f f e c t a f a ilu re to m a in tain cont i nuous phy s i cal pr es ence and cont i nuous phy s i cal r es i dence f o r p u rp o se s o f

th e T P S p ro g ra m . N o tab ly , the sta tu te 4t empora r ytr i p abr oad r equi r ed byemer gencyorext enuat i ng c ir c u m s ta n c e s o u ts id e th e c o n tr o l o f th e a lie n . 9 s peci fi ca ll ypr es cr i bes that“[n] othi ng i n thi s s ect i on s hal l be c o n stru e d a s au th o riz in g a n a lien to a p p lyf o r a d m iss io n to , o r to b e a d m itted to , the U n it ed S tat es in o rde r to ap p lyfo r t em p o rary p rotec ted s tatu s u n d er this sec ti o n . ” Id

. § 1 2 5 4 a(c )(5). T he appl i cabl e r egul at i ons r epea tthe r equi r ement s for T PS and al s o pr ovi de forlat e r egi s tr at i on, s peci fi cal l yby c h i l dren of

el i gibl e grant ees. A n ali en from a desi gn at ed sta te m a ya p p lyf

o r T e m p o ra ryP ro tec ted S tatu s in a c c o r d a n c e w ith app l i cable r egu l at i on s: E xceptas p rovi ded i n §§ 1244. 3 and 1244. 4, an al i en m ayi n the di s cr et ion o f the di r ect orbe gr ant ed T empora r yPr ot ect ed St atus i f the al i en es tabl i s hes that he ors he: ( a) I s a nat i onal , as defi ned i n s ect i on 101( a) ( 21) of the A ct , of a f

or ei gn s t at e des i gnat ed under se c tio n 2 4 4 (b ) o f

th e A c t; (b ) H a s b e e n c o n tin u o u slyp h y sic a ll y p re se n t in the U n it ed S t at es s i nce the ef fec t i ve dat e of the m os tr ece ntdes i gnat i on of thatfor ei gn s t at e; ( c) H as cont i nuous l yr es i ded i n the U ni t ed St at es s i nce s uch dat e as the A t tor neyG ener al m ay des i gnat e;10 . . . . ( f) ( 1) R egi s t er s forT empora ryPro te ct ed St atus dur i ng the i ni t i al r egi s tr a t i on per i od announce d by publ i c not i ce i n the Feder al R egi s t er , or ( 2) D ur i ng anys ubs equentext ens i on of s uch des i gnat i on i f atthe t i m e of t he i ni t i al re g istra tio n p e rio d :

. . . . ( i v) T he appl i canti s a s pous e or c h ild o f a n a lien c u rre n tlye lig ib le t o be a TPS r egi s tr ant . ( g) H as fi l ed an appl i cat i on for l at e r egi s tr at i on w i th the appr opr i at e Servi ce di r ect orw i thi n a 60- dayper i od i m m edi at el yfol l ow i ng the expi r at i o n o rt erm i nat i on of condi t i ons des cr i bed i n par agr aph ( f) ( 2) of thi s s ect i on. 8 C

. F. R
. § 1244. 2. U nderthe r egul at i ons , the chi l d ors pous e of a per s on w ho w as el i gi bl e for T PS dur i ng the i ni t i al r egi s tr at i on per i od m ayappl yfor T PS duri ng anys ubs equentext ens i on ther eof. II. A

. E udul i o D e L eon- O choa, et c. , v. A t t orney G ener al , N o. 09- 152011 Peti ti o nerE udul i o D e Leon- O choa i s a nat i onal and ci t i zen o f H o n d ur as . H e ent er ed the U ni t ed St at es on orabout N ovember 3 0 , 2 005, w i thoutpr operdocument at i on. H e w as s erved w i th a N ot i ce t o A ppear on N ovember30, 2005, and c h a rg e d w ith re m o v a b ili ty p u r su a n t to S e c tio n 2 1 2 (a )(6 )(A )(i) of the I m m i gr at i on and N at i onal i tyA ct( “I N A ”)

. H e appl i ed for as y l um , w i thhol di ng of r emoval , pr ot ect i on under the C onvent i on A gai ns tT or tur e ( “C A T ”) , and TP S. T he I J i s s ued an or al deci s i on fi ndi ng Pet i t i onerr emovabl e on N ovember27, 2 0 0 7
. ( 1 ) A s y l u m , Wi th h o l d i n g o f R e m o v a l , a n d CA T Pr ot ect i on A t th e IJ h ea ri n g , D e L eo n -O ch o a testi fied that h e is p art of t he T ur ci os fami l y and t hat hi s fami l yi s embroi l ed i n a bl ood feud w i th t he N aj er a fa m i l yi n R i o C hi t o, H ondur as . Pet i t i oner al l eged thatthe N aj er a fa m i l yki l l ed thr ee di ffe r ent m ember s of his fam i l yand that the p oli ce fail ed t o i nv est i gate these de at hs. T w o of the death cert i fi cat es om i t t ed caus e of dea th. Pet i t i oner cl ai m ed ther e w as pol i ti cal t ens i on betw een the tw o fami l i es bas ed o n th e Tu r c i o s ’ s u p p o r to f th e Nat i o n a l Pa r tya n d the N a jer a ’s s u p p o rt o f

th e L ib e ra l P a rty . P e tit io n e r tes tifie d to p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n p o l i t i c s twi c e b e twe e n 2 0 0 2 a n d 2 0 0 4
. He cl ai m s t he Li ber al Par tyt ol d hi m t o m ove orl eave hi s po l l i ng s t at i on bot h t i m es . H e al s o t es t i fi ed thatno one i n hi s fami l yhas hel d offi ce w i th the N at i onal Par ty . Pet i t i oner t es t i fi ed thatthe N a je ra f a m ily w a s s u s p e c te d o f

o th e r p o litic a l m u rd e rs . D e Leon- O choa t es t i fi ed thathe bel i eved he w oul d be k i l l e d b yth e Na

j e r a f a mi l yi f h e r e tu rn e d t o Ho n d u r a s . He12 test ifi ed th a t he c o u ld n o t be p rotec ted d u e to th e N ajera f a m ily ’s p o li tic a l p o w e r a n d d id n o t h a v e a n yw h e re to sta yin H ondur as bes i des hi s hom et ow n. Pet i t i onercl ai m ed hi s ol der b roth er told h im h e h as n o fre ed o m b ec au se h e f ea rs th e N ajera w ill a ttac k h im

. H e a d m itt e d th a t h is f a th e r d id n o t h a v e tro u b le w i th the N aj er a fa m i l ybefor e hi s fatherl eftH ondur as i n 1998, a n d th a th i s f

a th e ri s n o t a m e m b e ro f th e T u r c i o s f

a m i l y. Pet i t i oner ’ s fathert es t i fi ed thatther e w as a bl ood feud be tw een the Turc i os fami l yand the N aj er a fam i l y , and des cr i bed s ever al ki l l i ngs . T he father conce ded thatnei therhi s w i fe norhi s s ons had probl ems w i th the N aj er a fa m i l y . H e expl ai ned thatw om en w er e nott ar get ed i n the conf l i ct , and thatthe s ons w er e not harm ed b ecause theydid n ot enter N aj era t err i t ory . N on et heles s, the fa thercl ai m ed that he s t i l l fea r ed for hi s s ons ’ s afe tyand that th e N a je ra f a m ily w a s s till s e a rc h in g f o r t h e m . T he I J found Peti t i oner ’ s t es t i m onyt o be cr edi bl e and c o n sis ten t w ith h is w ritten a s ylu m a p p lica tio n , b u t u lti m a tely foun d tha t Pe t i t i on e r di d no t s ho w he w a s a vi c t i m o f past p erse cu ti o n , n o r did h e p rov e a n o bje c ti v e f ea r of fu ture p e r s e c u t i o n . T h e I J h e l d th a tP e t i t i o n e rf a i l e d t o s h o w a l i kel i hood of per s ecut i on beca us e hi s i m m edi at e fam i l yhad not been ha r m ed, h e l eftH ondur as s i x y ear s aft erthe mostr ece nt ki l l i ng of a mem ber of the Turc i os fami l y , and ther e w as no ev iden ce that the f

eu d co n ti n u e d p a s t 19 9 6
. A lth o u g h the IJ acc ept ed th a t“ f

a mi l y ” c o u l d b e a s o c i a l g r o u p f o rp u rp o s e s of the s t atut e, the I J found thatPet i t i onerfai l ed t o es t abl i s h an obj ect i ve fe arof futur e per s ecut i on, w as n o t pe r s uaded by Pet i t i oner ’ s m i ni m al pol i t i cal act i vi ty , an d di d notbel i eve that the H ondur an governm en t w as compl i ci ti n anyof the al l eged a c t i v i ty . Ul t i ma t e l y t h e I J d e n i e d P e t i t i o n e r ’ s a s y l u m,13 w ith h o ld in g o f

re m o v a l a n d C A T c la im s . ( 2) T empora r yPr ot ect ed St atus The I J he l d De L eon -O cho a t o b e i ne l i gi bl e fo rTPS beca us e of hi s fai l ur e t o per s onal l ys at i s fythe cont i nuous ph y si cal presence and c o nti nu ou s r esi den ce requir em ents
. H ondur an TP S appl i cant s m us tdemo n str at e cont i nuous re sid e n c e f

ro m D e c e m b e r 3 0 , 1 9 9 8 , a n d th e ym u st d e m o n stra te p h y s ic a l p re s e n c e f

ro m J a n u a ry 5 , 1 9 9 9
. S e e 8 U .S .C . § 1254a( c) ( 1) ( A ) ( i )

- ( i i ) ( r equi r i ng a TP S appl i cantt o be “cont i nuous l y phy s i cal l y pr es ent ” s i nce the “mo st r ece nt d e sig n a tio n ” a n d to h a v e “ c o n tin u o u sly re sid e d ” sin c e th e d a te the A t t orneyG ener al des i gnat es ) ; 64 F ed. R eg. 524 ( J an. 5, 1999) ( des i gnat i ng H ondur as forthe T P S pr ogr am). Pet i t i oner di d notarr i ve i n the U ni t ed St at es unt i l N ovember2005, and the I J ther efor e conc l uded thathe w as pri m a fa ci e i nel i gi bl e for T P S

. Pet i t i onerappea l ed the I J ’ s deci s i on t o the B I A , w hi ch d ism issed h is ap p ea l on Jan u ary3 0 , 2 0 0 9
. T h e B IA fo u n d the IJ di d noterri n det erm i ni ng thatPet i t i onerfai l ed t o es t abl i s h a w ell -fo u n d ed fe ar o f p erse cu ti o n o r a li k eli h o o d o f to rtu re s houl d he r eturn t o H ondur as . T he B I A agr eed, addi t i onal l y , that Pet i t i onerw as i nel i gi bl e forT PS bec aus e he coul d notm eetthe con t i nu ou s r esi den ce and ph y si cal presence requ ir em ents , r ej ect ing ar gum ent s bas ed on i m put at i on and humani t ar i an conce r ns . T he B I A di s m i s s ed hi s appea l and the i ns t antpet i t i on forr evi ew fol l ow ed. B
. E ufemi a Fl or es - D om i nguez, etal

. , v. A t t orn ey14 G ener al , N o. 09- 1760 Pet i t i oner s A r el yR i ver a - Fl o r e s , El i da R i ver a- Fl or es , and E u f e m ia F lo re s-D o m in g u e z a re th e 1 4 y e a r-o ld a n d 1 3 y e a r-o ld daught er s and the mot herof R os a Fl or es , a curr entT PS gra nt ee. Pet i t i oner s ar e nat i onal s and ci t i zens of E l Sal vador w ho ent er ed the U ni t ed St at es on oraboutN ovember1, 2006, w i thoutpr oper document at i on. T hey w ere s erved N ot i ces t o A ppearon N ovember16, 2006 , an d char ged w i th r emovabi l i tyunder Sect i on 212( a) ( 6 ) ( A) ( i ) o f the I N A

. Pet i t i oner s appl i ed t o U ni t ed S t a t e s Ci t i z e ns hi p a nd I mm i gr a t i on Se r vi c e s ( “ U SCI S” ) fo rTPS on June 10, 20 07
. E l S al vad oran TP S app l i cants m ustest abli sh cont i nuous phy s i cal pr es ence i n the U ni t ed St at es s i nce M ar ch 9, 2001, and cont i nuous r es i dence s i nce February 13, 2001. See 8 U
. S. C

. § 1254a( c) ( 1) ( A ) ( i )

- ( i i ) ; 66 Fed. R eg. 14, 214 ( M ar . 9, 2 0 0 1 ) ( d e s i g n a t i n g E l Sa l v a d o rf o rth e T P S p r o g r a m)

. On A u g u st 1 6 , 2 0 0 7 , a n IJ iss u e d o rd e rs o f re m o v a l, de n y in g th e ir r e qu e s tfo ra c on t i nu anc e t o p e r mi ta dj ud i c a t i on of the TPS appl i cati ons . T he I J s t at ed s he had a uthor i tyonl yt o r evi ew U SC I S deni al of a TPS appl i cat i on, w i th no pow erof de novo r evi ew . Pet i t i oner s appea l ed t o the B I A on Sept ember7, 2007. S u b seq u en tl y , o n N o v em b er 1 9 , 2 0 0 7 , U S C IS sen t Pe ti ti o n ers a N ot i ce of I nt ent t o D eny , r eques t i ng addi t i onal infor m at i on. Pe t i t i on e r s fa i l ed t o r e s po nd a nd U SCI S de ni e d the i rTPS appl i cat i ons on A pr il 1 0 , 2 008, forfai l ur e t o m eetthe cont i nuous phy s i cal pr es ence and cont i nuous r es i dence r equi r ement s . O n M ay8, 2008, Pet i t i oner s m oved for a r emand t o p e r mi tth e I J t o a d j u d i c a t e th e i rT P S a p p l i c a t i o n s . On February23, 2009, the B I A di s m i s s ed thei rapp ea l a s m oot b ec au s e U S C IS h ad d en ied th e T P S ap p li ca ti o n s. T h e B IA di s m i s s ed the Peti ti o n ers ’ m ot i on t o r emand fora de novo15 r e v i e w o f

th e TP S a p p l i c a t i o n s f o rf a i l u r e t o m e e t th e p r i ma fac i e s t atut ory r equi r ement s , and t he i ns t ant pet i t i on forr evi ew fol l ow ed. C

. R
. E
. L

- P- v. A t t orneyG ener al , N o. 09- 1960 Pet i t i onerL

- P- i s the 16 y ear - ol d daught erof M ar i a M
. M o n ta ne, a curr ent T PS gr ant ee. She and her m otherare nat i onal s and ci t i zens of El Sal vador

. Pet i t i oner en te r ed the U ni t ed St a t e s o n o r a b o u t M a r c h 3 1 , 2 0 0 7 , a t th e a g e o f 13, w ith o u t p ro p e r d o c u m e n tatio n . S h e w a s s e rv e d a N o tice to A p p e a r o n A p ril 4 , 2 0 0 7 , a n d c h a rg e d w ith re m o v a b ili ty pur s uantt o Sect i on 212( a) ( 6) ( A ) ( i ) of t he IN A

. O n J anuary18, 2008, Pet i t i onerfi l ed an appl i cat i on for T PS w i th U SC I S as the c h ild o f a c u rre n t T P S g ra n tee . E l S a lv a d o ra n T P S a p p lica n ts m us tes t abl i s h cont i nuous phy s i cal pr es ence i n the U ni t ed St at es sinc e M arc h 9 , 2 0 0 1 , an d co n ti n u o u s reside n ce sinc e F eb rua ry 13, 2001. See 8 U

. S. C

. § 1254a( c) ( 1) ( A ) ( i ) -(i i ) ; 66 Fed. R eg. 14 , 2 1 4 ( M a r . 9 , 2 0 0 1 ) ( d e s i g n a t i n g El S a l v a d o r f o rt he TPS pr ogram ). Pet i t i oner ’ s appl i cat i on w as deni ed byU SC I S for fai l ure t o dem on strat e sat i sfact i on of the st atutoryrequi rem ents
. T her e was n o a d mi n i s tr a t i v e a p p e a l

. Pe t i t i o n e ra s s e r t e d h er el i gi bi l i tyforT PS befor e the I J , w ho deni ed her appl i cat i on by or al deci s i on on J ul y 28, 2008. T he I J found th at P eti t i oner fai l ed t o m eet the cont i nuous phy s i cal pr es ence and cont i nuous r e s i de nc e r e qu i r e ment s a nd w a s the r e fo r e no t e l i gi bl e fo rTPS. Pet i t i onerappea l ed t o the B I A , ar gui ng herm other ’ s r es i dency an d phy s i cal pr es ence s houl d be i m put ed t o herand thatthe phy s i cal pr es ence r equi r ements houl d be re ad t o encompas s the m os tr ece ntext ens i on of TP S de s i gnat i on, notthe dat e of i ni t i al des i gnat i on. Sh e addi t i onal l yar gued the I J ’ s deni al w as16 err oneous on hum ani t ar i an gr ounds

. T he B IA di s m i s s ed the a p p e a l o n M a rc h 6 , 2 0 0 9 , h o ld in g th a t P e tit io n e r w a s s tatu to rily i nel i gi bl e forT PS and t hatboth the B I A and I J w er e cons tr ai ned b yth e sta tu te a n d re g u latio n s a n d d id n o t h a v e th e d isc re tio n to gr antT PS on hum ani t ar i an orfami l y - uni tygr ounds

. T he i ns t ant pet i t i on forr evi ew fol l ow ed. II I. A s a thr esho ld m att er , w e mustdet erm i ne w hat d ef ere n ce , if an y , to a cc o rd th e B IA ’s si n g le-m em b er, unpubl i s hed and nonpr ece dent i al deci s i ons fr om w hi ch Pet i t i oner s s eek r evi ew . W hen the B oar d i s s ues i t s ow n opi ni on, as her e, and does notadoptthe I J ’ s fi ndi ngs , w e r evi ew onl ythe deci s i on of the B o ar d. L i v. A t t ’ yG en. , 400 F. 3d 157, 162 ( 3d C ir. 2 0 0 5 ). W e re v iew leg a l q u e stio n s d e n o v o , w ith a p p ro p ria te d e f e re n c e f o r th e B IA ’s re a so n a b le in terp re tatio n s o f sta tu tes it i s char ged w i th admi ni s t er i ng. Si l va- R engi fo v. A t t ’ yG en. , 473 F. 3d 58, 63 ( 3d C i r . 2007) ( ci t i ng I N S v. A gui rr e- A gui rr e, 526 U
. S. 415 ( 1999) and C hevr on, U
. S. A

. , I nc. v. N atur al R es . D ef. C o u n c il, Inc
. , 4 6 7 U
. S

. 8 3 7 (19 8 4 )); see also D u v all v . A tt ’y G en. , 436 F. 3d 382, 386 ( 3d C i r . 2006) ( “W e have j ur i s di ct i on to c o n sid e r th e d e c isio n o f th e B o a rd o f

Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls under8 U
. S. C

. § 1252( b) ( 2) , and exe r ci s e pl enaryr evi ew over q u esti o n s o f law , w ith d u e d ef ere n ce to the ag en cy ’s i nt erpr et at i on of the I m m i gr at i on and N atur al i zat i on A ct (I N A ).” ). U nderthe fa m i l i artw o- s t ep C hevr on i nqui ry , fi r s t , i f the s t atut e i s cl earw e mustgi ve ef fec tt o C ongr es s ’ unam b iguous in ten t, an d , se c o n d , if th e sta tu te is sile n t o r a m b ig u o u s w ith17 resp ec t t o a spe cific i ssu e, w e d ef er to a n im p lem en ti n g ag en cy ’s r eas onab le i nt erpr et at i on of thats t atut e. C hevr on, U
. S. A

. , I nc. v. N atur al R es . D ef. C o u nci l , I nc. , 467 U
. S. 837, 842- 843 (19 8 4 ). A fter U n it ed S tat es v . M ea d C o rp., 5 3 3 U
. S

. 2 1 8 (20 0 1 ), w e ac cor d C hevr on defe r ence onl yt o agenc yact i on pr om ul g ated i n the exe r ci s e of c ongr es s i onal l y - del egat ed a u th o ri ty to m a k e ru le s c a rr y in g th e f o rc e o f l a w . M e a d C o rp ., 533 U
. S. at226- 227. A gencyact i on that d o es notqual i fyfor C hevr on defe r ence m ay s t i l l des erve a l es s eramount of d ef ere n ce u n d er S k idm o re v . S w ift& C o . , 3 2 3 U
. S

. 1 3 4 (19 4 4 ), u n d e r w h ich re sp e c t is gr a n ted to a g e n c y a c tio n a c c o rd in g to its pow ert o persu ad e. Ski dm or e, 323 U
. S. at140. M ead re su sc itate d S k id m o re , b e c a u se “ C h e v ro n d id n o th in g to el i m i nat e Ski dm or e’ s hol di n g thatan age ncy ’ s i nt erpr et at i on m aym er i ts om e def

er ence w hat everi t s form , gi ven the
‘ s peci al i zed exper i ence and br oader i nves t i gat i on s and i nform at i on’ avai l abl e t o the age ncy. . . , and gi ven the val ue of uni form i tyi n i t s adm i ni s tr at i ve and j udi ci al under s t andi ngs of w hata nat i onal l aw r equi r es . ” M ead, 533 U
. S. at234- 235 (cit ati o n s o m itted). A lth o u g h w e ro u tin e ly a c c o rd C h e v ro n d e f e re n c e to publ i s hed deci s i ons of t he B I A , s ee I N S v. A gui rr e- A gui rr e, 526 U
. S. 415, 424 (19 9 9 ), thi s C our thas neverannounce d the d e f e re n c e d u e a n u n p u b lish e d d e c isio n re n d e re d b ya sin g le m e m b e r o f

th e B IA . In S m rik o v . A sh c ro f t, w e d e c lin e d to det erm i ne the def

er ence due an I J ’ s deci s i on aff i r m ed thr ough the B I A ’ s s tr eaml i ni ng pr ocedur e, butobs erve d i n di ctum that
“ [ a ]lth o u g h th e B IA h a s d ire c ted u s to re v iew th e IJ’ s o p in io n in s tr eaml i ned ca s es , d ef

err i ng t o the r eas oni ng of an I J fr om w h ich th e B IA w o u ld b e f re e to d e p a rt in o th e r c a se s w o u ld18 see m h igh lyp rob lem ati c.” 38 7 F
. 3 d 2 7 9 , 2 8 9 n . 6 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 4 ). N o c o n se n su s e x ists a m o n g o u r sis ter C o u rts o f A p p e a ls a s to w h a t q u a n tu m o f

d e f e re n c e , if a n y , sh o u ld b e a c c o rd e d to these op i nions. A ft er M ead, s everal C ou rt s of A p p e a ls a f f irm a tiv e lyre

jec ted a p p lica tio n o f

C h e v ro n d e f

e re n c e to unpubl i s hed B I A deci s i o n s. S ee Q ui nchi a v. A t t ’ yG en. , 552 F. 3d 1255, 1258 ( 11th C i r . 2008) ( s t at i ng th at a n unpubl i s hed B IA d e c isio n th a t d o e s n o t re ly o n B IA o r C o u rt o f A p p e a ls pr ece dentdoes notr ece i ve C hevr on defe r ence ) ; R ot i m i v. G on za les, 473 F. 3d 55, 57- 58 ( 2d C i r . 2007) ( hol di ng thatan u n p u b lish e d B IA d e c isio n th a t d o e s n o t re lyo n p re c e d e n t f o r its defi ni t i on of a c ont es t ed t erm does notr ece i ve C hevr on defe rence, becau se i ti s not “pr om ulgat ed u nd er [t he ag ency ’s ] author i tyt o m ake rul es ca rry ing the for ce of l aw ”) ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks om i t t ed) ; G ar ci a- Q ui nt er o v. G onzal es , 455 F. 3d 1006, 1012- 14 ( 9th C i r . 2006) ( opi ni ng thatan unpubl i s hed B I A deci s i on does nothave the for ce of l aw and ther efor e does no trecei ve C hev ron def erenc e ). B ut s ee G utni k v

. G on zal es, 469 F. 3 d 683, 689- 690 ( 7th C i r . 2006) ( acc or di ng C hevr on d ef ere n ce to B IA ’s strea m li n ed ad o p ti o n o f IJ d ec isi o n ). Som e C ourt s of A ppeal s have decl ar ed thatunpubl i s hed opi ni ons of the B I A ar e t o be acc or ded Ski dm or e def er ence . See C arpi o v. H ol der , 592 F. 3d 10 9 1 , 1 097- 1098 ( 10th C i r . 2010) ( “I f t he i nt erpr et at i on i s not pr ece dent i al w i thi n the age ncy , then th e in t e r p r e t a tio n d o e s n o t q u a lif yf o r C h e v ro n d e f

e re n c e . . . . B e c a u s e th e B IA ’s d e c is io n d o e s n o t ‘ c a rr y t h e f o rc e o f la w ,’ M ea d C o rp., 5 3 3 U
. S

. at 22 6 , w e m u st ex a m in e the B IA ’s d e c isio n in [ p e tit io n e r’s ] c a se u n d e r th e f ra m e w o rk se t f

o rth in Ski dm or e. ”) ( ci t at i ons om i t t ed) ; B arr i os v. H ol der , 581 F. 3d19 849, 859 ( 9th C i r . 2008) ( “A s i ngl e- m emberB I A panel aff i r m ed the I J ’ s deci s i on i n an unpu b l i s hed, nonpr ece dent i al deci s i on. Such deci s i ons ar e ent it led t o onl ySki dm or e, r atherthan C hevr on, defe r ence . ”)

. M any C our t s of A ppeal s have de cl i ned t o announce a s t andar d. See D obr ova v. H ol der , 607 F. 3d 297, 3 0 0 (2d C ir

. 2 0 1 0 ) (“W h ethe r un p u b li sh ed B IA o p inion s are ent i t l ed t o Ski dm or e defer ence orw hethertheyar e r evi ew ed de novo i s an open ques t i on i n thi s C i r cui t
. . . . W e nee d notans w er th a tq u e s t i o n h e r e , h o we v e r , b e c a u s e e v e n o n d e n o v o r e v i e w, w e f ind the m ea n ing

. . . to b e c lear an d u n am b igu o u s. ”); C e r v a n t e s v . H o l d e r , 5 9 7 F
. 3 d 2 2 9 , 2 3 3 n . 5 ( 4 th C i r . 2 0 1 0 ) ( “ We need notr es ol ve i n thi s pr ocee di ng w hethernonpr ece dent i al B IA d e c isio n s a re e n tit led to C h e v ro n d e f e re n c e , o r m e re lyto Ski dm o re defer ence . A s expl ai ned bel ow , w e w oul d denythe pet i t i on forr evi ew underthe l es s defe r ent i al s t andar d of S k idm o re.”); M u sh taq v
. H o lder, 58 3 F
. 3 d 8 7 5 , 8 7 7 (5th C ir. 2 0 0 9 ) (“ W e n ee d n o t reso lve this q u esti o n , b ec au se M u sh taq’s cl ai m fai l s under e it h er st andar d. T hus , w e r evi ew i tunderthe less-de fe ren ti al S k idm o re stan d ard

. ”); G u o Q i W an g v . H o lder, 583 F
. 3 d 86, 90 n. 2 ( 2d C i r . 2009) ( “W hi l e w e have noty et d ec ided w h ethe r un p u b li sh ed , sing le-m em b er B IA d ec isi o n s are ent i t l ed t o the l es s er form of defe r ence des cr i bed i n Ski dm or e, we n e e d n o t c o n s i d e r th e i s s u e h e r e a s we wo u l d r e a c h th e s a me resu lt rev iew ing this p eti ti o n d e no v o . ”) ( cit ati o n s o m itted); G odi nez- A r r oy o v. M ukas ey , 540 F. 3d 848, 851 ( 8th C i r . 2008) ( “W e nee d not addr es s i t her e, as w e hol d thateven appl y i ng the le s ser S k idm o re d ef

ere n ce , w e a ff

irm the p ersu asiv e B IA d ec isi o n . ”). W e n o t e p a r e n th e t i cal l ythatunpubl i s hed, s i ngl e- m ember BI A d e c i s i o n s h a v e n o p r e c e d e n t i a l v a l u e , d o n o tb i n d th e BI A,B ybr i ef a nd at or al ar gum ent , Pet i t i oner s ar gue that 5 u n d er C ruz v . A tt o rne yG en era l, 4 5 2 F
. 3 d 2 4 0 , 2 5 0 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 6 ), w e a re o b li g ated to o rd e r th e B o ard to ac co rd p r e c edent i al val ue t o i t s unpubl i s hed dec i s i on i n M att erof R ey es ( B I A , Feb. 9, 2005) ( unpubl i s hed) , w her ei n a si ngl e m emberof the B I A i s s ued a nonpr ece dent i al opi ni on fi ndi ng the s pous e of an el i gi bl e TP S appl i cantt o be el i gi bl e for T PS underthe appl i cabl e r egul at i on s notw i ths t andi ng herfai l ur e t o m eetthe “nat i onal i ty ” re qui r ement
. A l t ernat i vel y , Pet i t i oner s ar gue that no defe r ence i s due the B I A ’ s nonp recede nt i al opi ni ons fr om w hi ch theys eek r evi ew beca us e theyeff ectan unexpl ai ned 20 and therefore do no tca rry the fo rce of l aw excep tas t o those part i es forw hom the opi ni on i s r ender ed. W e agr ee w i th the C our tof A ppeal s for the N i nth C i r cui t that , “[i ] n l i ghtof M ead, the ‘ es s ent i al fac t or ’ i n det erm i ning w hetheran age ncyact i on w arr ant s C hevr on defe r ence i s i t s pr ecede n t i al val ue. ” G ar ci aQ ui nt er o, 455 F. 3d at 1012. A n unpubl i s hed B I A opi ni on i s not i s s ued pur s uant t o the B I A ’ s author i tyt o m ake rul es carry i ng the for ce of l aw . W e furtheragr ee that [t ]he un pu bli shed desi gn at i on of the decis i on al so m a k e s it c lea r t h a t it w a s n o t issu e d p u rsu a n t to the B I A ’ s author i tyt o m ake rul es that carrythe f o r c e o f l a w. Ag a i n , a c c o r d i n g t o th e Bo a r d ’ s o wn interna l po li cies, “[u ]np u b li sh ed d ec isi o n s are bi n d i n g o n th e p a r t i e s t o th e d e c i s i o n b u t a r e not c o n s id e re d p re c e d e n t f

o r u n re la te d c a s e s .” Id. at 10 1 3 (cit ati o n s o m itted). 5devi at i on fr om M att erof R ey es . I n C ruz, w e opi ned that [w ] hi l e the unp u b li s hed B I A deci s i ons w e have co n sul t ed ar e notnece s s ar i l yi n the ca t egoryof “s el ect ed dec i s i ons . . . des i gnated t o s erve as p r e c e d e n t s i n a l l p r o c e e d i n g s i n v o l v i n g th e s a me is s ue ori s s ues , ” 8 C

. F. R
. § 1003. 1( g) , agenc i es s houl d notm ove aw ay fr om thei r pr evi ous rul i ngs w i tho ut cogen t exp l anati on . . . . W here there i s a cons i s t entpatt ern of admi ni s tr at i ve dec i s i ons on a g iv e n iss u e , w e w o u ld e x p e c t th e B IA to co n fo rm to tha t p a tte rn o r ex p lai n it s d ep arture f ro m it. 452 F. 3d at250 ( ci t at i ons om i t t ed)

. C ruz and M att erof R ey es d o n o t as sis t P e tit io n e rs. F irst, M a tter o f R e y e s h a s a b so lu tely no bi ndi ng pr ece dent i al val ue. C f. J ohns on v. A s hcr oft , 286 F. 3d 696, 700 ( 3d C i r . 2002) ( r equi r i ng r eas on t o departfr om es t abl i s hed “pr ece dent s ”)

. Second, the i s s ues of “c ont i nuous p h y sic a l p re se n c e ” a n d “ c o n tin u o u s re sid e n c y ” a re f a c tu a lly di s t i nctfr om thatof “na t i onal i ty ” and ther efor e do not i m pl i cat e “the s ame i s s ue ori s s ues . ” C ruz, 452 F. 3d at250. T hi r d, M att erof R ey es does notcompri s e a “ cons i s t ent patt ern of admi ni s tr at i ve dec i s i ons on a gi ven i s s ue, ” t o w hi ch w e w oul d expec tthe B I A t o conform orfr om w hi ch a departur e s houl d be j us t i fi ed. Four th, w e have befor e us thr ee cons i s t ent u n p u b lish e d B IA o p in io n s re q u irin g late re g istra n ts u n d er the g u idelines to p erso n all yco m p lyw ith the s tatu tory r equi r ement s . A ccor di ngl y , underC ruz, i f the B I A i s r equi r ed 21t o expl ai n i t s departur e fr om a pos i t i on t aken i n an unpubl i s hed dec i s i on, i tw oul d be thatof the thr ee c ongruous opi ni ons befor e us t oday , notthe anomal ous pos i t i on adopt ed i n M att erof R ey es . Fi nal l y , beca us e “unpubl i s hed pr ece dent i s a dubi ous bas i s fordemonstr at i ng the type of i ncons i s t ency w hi ch w oul d w arr antr ej ect i on of def er ence , ” D e O s or i o v. I N S, 10 F. 3d 1034, 1042 ( 4th C i r . 1993) , “[w ] e w i l l notbi nd the B I A w i th a s i ngl e non- pr ece dent i al , unpubl i s hed dec i s i on a n ymo r e th a n we o u r s e l v e s a r e b o u n d b yo u ro wn unpubl i s hed or der s . ” Leal

- R odr i guez v. I N S, 990 F. 2d 939, 9 4 6 (7th C ir

. 1 9 9 3 ).
Al t h o u g h th e p a r t i e s s i mi l a r l yf a i l e d t o p r o p o s e i t , we 6 have c ons i der ed rem andi ng t o the B I A fora pr ece dent i al opi ni on i n the fi r s ti ns t ance . S ee Sm r i ko, 387 F. 3d 279 22 A l l part i es befor e the C o u r tfai l ed t o br i ef the i s s ue of appr opr i at e def

er ence forunpubl i s hed B I A deci s i ons . T hi s i s an open ques t i on in o u rC our tw i th w i des pr ead r ami fi cat i ons for appel l a t e r e v i ew of al l s uch non- pr ece dent i al B I A deci s i ons . See Sm r i ko v. A s hcr oft , 387 F. 3d 279, 296 ( 3d C i r . 2004) ( obs ervi ng thatfi ndi ng of j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew B I A s tr eaml i ni ng deci s i ons is o f “ su b sta n tial im p o rta n c e ” b e c a u se o f th e n u m b e r o f p o ss ib le in v o c a tio n s). B e c a u se it w a s n o t b rie f e d , b a re lya rg u e d , an d is not d i s pos i t i ve forthe i s s ues befor e us , w e dec l i ne t o r es ol ve thi s ques t i on. Forthe r eas ons that fol l ow , w e hol d thatunderany s t andar d of r evi ew , w e ca nnotgr antPet i t i oner s r el i ef. 6( r emandi ng pet i t i oner ’ s appea l of B I A ’ s s tr eaml i ned af fi r m ance of I J ’ s opi ni on t o al l ow the B I A t o addr es s pet i t i oner ’ s novel i s s ue of l aw , i n the fi r s ti ns t ance , i n a pr ece dent i al opi ni on) ; s ee al s o D obr ova v. H ol der, 607 F. 3d 297, 300 ( 2d C i r . 2010) (“ [ S ]in c e h e re w e d e ter m in e th a t th e tex t o f th e re lev a n t sta tu te is c lea r, an d th e o n lyq u e stio n p re se n te d o n a p p e a l is a p u re ly leg a l o n e , rem a n d to th e B IA f o r p re c e d e n tial in terp re tatio n in the fi r s ti ns t ance i s unnece s s ary . ”) ; G utni k v. G onzal es , 469 F
. 3 d 6 8 3 , 6 9 1 (7th C ir

. 2 0 0 6 ) (r ea d ing 8 C

. F
. R
. § 1 0 0 3
. 1 (e)(4)- ( 5) t ogethert o r equi r e onl ythatthe B I A notr evi ew cas es r es ol vi ng novel i s s ues byaff i r m ance w i thoutopi nion , b u tnot r equi r i ng a s i ngl e B I A m embert o ref er an appe al t o a thr eem emberpanel )

. W e dec l i ne t o do s o beca us e, as i n D obr ova, the q u e stio n s p re se n ted a re p u re lyleg a l a n d th e re f o re p ro p e rly b e f o re u s . 23 IV
. A p p ly in g d e n o v o re v iew , w e n o w tu rn to th e a rg u m e n ts of the part i es . I n thei rpet i t i ons forr evi ew , Pet i t i oner s ar gue that the I J and the B I A err ed i n deny i ng T empora ryPr ot ect ed St atus forfai l ur e t o m eetthe “c ont i nuous r es i dence ” and “ cont i nuous p h y s ic a l p re s e n c e ” re q u ir e m e n ts f o r T P S e lig ib ility. 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 4 a (c )(1 )(A )(i)-(ii). P e tit io n e rs c o n c e d e th a t th e yf a il t o p e r s o n a l l yme e tth e s t a tu t o ryr e q u i r e me n to f “ c o n t i n u o us res i den ce” from “ su c h d at e as the A t t orneyG eneral [has] des i gnat e[d] , ” b u tar gue i n thei rpet i t i ons thattheyhave c o n stru c tiv e lym e t th e re q u ire m e n t th ro u g h im p u tatio n o f th e ir par ent s ’ r es i dence

. I d. § 1254a( c) ( 1) ( A ) ( i i )

. Pet i t i oner s cont end addi t i onal l y thatunderthe pl ai n m eani ng of the s t atut e, they24 h ave m etthe “co nti nu ou s phy si cal presence” requir em ent, becau se t he s t atut oryt erm “mostr ece ntdes i gnat i on” e n c o m p a s s e s e x te n s io n s o f a T P S d e s ig n a tio n . Id . § 1 2 5 4 a (c )( 1 )( A )( i) . W e d is a g re e , f o r t h e re a s o n s th a t f

o llo w . A. Pet i t i oner s ar g ue thatthei rpar ent s ’ undi s put ed s at isfac ti o n o f th e “ co n ti n u o u s reside n ce ” re q ui r ements houl d be “i m put ed” t o them for purpos es of thei row n T PS el i gi bi l i ty . T he G overnm entar gues thatthe pl ai n t extof the s t atut e, the i m pl ement i n g r egul at i ons , and the cons i s t entpos i t i on of the A t t orneyG ener al r equi r e appl i cant s to i ndi vi dual l ys at i s fythe “cont i nuous r es iden ce” r equi r ement
. W e agr ee w i th the G o v e rn m e n t. 1. W e n o te at th e o u tsetthat w e a re o n lythe s ec o n d C o u rt of A ppeal s t o addr es s the ques t i on of i m put at i on forthe p u rp o se s o f

th e T P S p ro g ra m . In a c a se ru n n in g o n a ll fo u rs w ith o u r o w n , the C o u r t o f A p p e a ls f o r th e F o u rth C irc u it rec e n tly aff i r m ed, underthe l es s defe r ent i al Ski dm or e s t andar d, a s i ngl em ember , nonpr ece dent i al opi ni on o f t he B I A r ej ect i ng the p e tit io n e r’s a rg u m e n t th a t h e m e t th e sta tu to ryT P S require m e n ts v ia i m p u tat ion

. C erv an tes v
. H o ld e r, 59 7 F
. 3 d 2 2 9 (4th C ir

. 2 0 1 0 ). R e ly in g o n sta tem e n ts i n th e F e d e ra l R e g iste r th a t a la te re g istra tio n is “ n o t in ten d e d to e x ten d to p e rso n s w h o a rriv e d in the U ni t ed S t at es . . . aft erthe [TPS ] des i gnat i on w as m ade” and the fa i l ur e of the s t atut e t o aff i r m at i vel y perm i ti m put at i on, the C ervant es court found the B I A ’ s cons truct i on perm i s s i bl e under Ski dm or e def

er ence . I d. at237 ( quot i ng 63 Fed. R eg. 63, 593, 6 3 ,5 9 4 (N o v . 1 6 , 1 9 9 8 )). A s in C e rv a n tes , P e tit io n e rs u rg e u s to r el yon a s er i es of ca s es o u t o f the C our tof A ppeal s forthe Ni n th Ci r c u i tt o d i s t i n g u i s h b o th Ce r v a n t e s a n d o u ro wnIn 2 0 0 7 , the B IA d ec li n ed to ap p lyC u ev as-G asp ar, 7 r efus i ng t o i m put e a par ent ’ s r es i dency t o s at i s fythe s even- y ear r es i dence r equi r ementof the ca ncel l at i on of r emoval s t atut e. E s cobar , 24 I
. & N
. D ec. 231 ( B I A 2007) ; s ee a l s o A ugus t i n, 5 2 0 F .3 d a t 2 6 9 ( d is c u ss in g E sc o b a r). T h e B IA e x p re ss ly di s agr eed w i th C uevas - G as par , agreei ng i ns t ead w i th the p o s i t i on of the di s s ent i ng opi ni on and fi ndi ng thatr es i dence d if f e rs f ro m d o m icile b e c a u se it c o n tain s n o e lem e n t o f in ten t, and thus i m put at i on i s notpr oper. E s cobar , 24 I
. & N
. D ec. at 25 pr ece denti n A ugus t i n v. A t t orneyG ener al , 520 F. 3d 264 ( 3d C i r . 2008)

. W e dec l i ne t o do s o. P e t i t i o n e r s r e l yp r i ma r i l yo n a l i n e o f c a s e l a w, i nt erpr et i ng s ever al i ncarnat i ons of t he cance l l at i on of r emoval s t a tu t e , p e r m i t t i n g i m p u t a t i o n f o r b o th d o m i c i l e a n d r e s i d e n c y. T h is l in e o rig in a tes w ith L e p e -G u itro n v . IN S , 1 6 F .3 d 1 0 2 1 (9 th C ir. 1 9 9 4 ), in w h ich th e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls fo r th e N in th C irc u it hel d thata par ent ’ s dom i ci l e i s i m put ed t o an unemanci pat ed m i norchi l d forthe purpos es of the domi ci l e r equi r ementof the s t atut orypr ecur s ort o the curr entc a n c e l l at i on of r emoval s t atut e. I d. at1022. A ccor di ng t o the court , dom i ci l e “i ncorpor at es the conce pt fami l i ar i n otherar eas of l aw , ” i m pel l i ng the conc l us i on that a chil d’s dom i ci l e foll ow s that of his or her parent s becau se chi l dr en ar e l egal l yi ncapa bl e of form i ng the r equi s i t e i nt ent
. I d. at1025 ( quot at i ons and ci t at i ons om i t t ed)

. T hatcourthas s i nce equat ed par ent al dom i ci l e t o resi dence as us ed i n the ca n ce ll ati o n o f re m o v al st atute. S ee M erc ad o -Z azue t a v. H ol der, 5 8 0 F
. 3 d 1 1 0 2 (9th C ir

. 2 0 0 9 ) (pe rm itti n g im p u tat ion o f p are n t’ s l aw ful perm anentr es i dents tat u s t o s at i s fycanc el l at i on of r emoval s t atut e’ s fi ve- y earr equi r emen t of l aw ful perm anent reside n ce ); C u ev as-G asp ar v . G o n za les, 4 3 0 F
. 3 d 1 0 1 3 (9th C ir

. 2005) ( perm i t t i ng i m pu tat ion of par ent ’ s r es i dence t o s at i s fy s ev en -y ea r co n ti n u o u s reside n ce req u ir em en t fo r ca n ce ll ati on of rem o v al). 7233. T he pet i t i onerappea l ed the B I A ’ s adver s e ru li ng t o the N i nth C i r cui t w hi ch subs equent l y fi l ed Escoba rv. H ol der , 567 F .3 d 4 6 6 (9 th C ir. 2 0 0 9 ), o v e rtu rn in g th e B IA . A p p a re n tly unbeknow ns tt o the N i nth C i r cui t , how ever , the B I A r e- opened the c ase o n A p ri l 21 , 2 0 0 9 , to h ea r arg u m en t on the re sp o n d en t’ s pr i ormot i on t o s up pr e s s , un r e l a t e d t o Es c ob a r ’ s TPS appl i cat i on. 2009 W L 1364840 ( B I A A pr. 2 1 , 2009) (u n p u b lish e d d e c isio n ). T h e N in th C irc u it th e n v a c a ted its opi ni on i n E s cobarv. H ol derand di s m i s s ed the pet i t i on for reh ea ri n g as m o o t. E sco b ar v . H o lder, 57 2 F
. 3 d 9 5 7 (9th C ir

. 2009)

. T h e N i nth C i r cui tw as nott o be det err ed. I n M er cadoZ azueta v. H older , the N i nth C i rcui tqu oted v erbat i m the v ast m aj or i tyof the vac at ed E s cobar opi ni on, 567 F. 3d 466, ther eby resu scit ati n g it

. 5 8 0 F
. 3 d 1 1 0 2 (9th C ir

. 2 0 0 9 ). T h e B IA c o n tin u e s to re ly o n E sc o b a r o u tsid e th e ju risd ictio n o f th e N in th C ir cu it

. S ee , e.g., R am ir ez -V arg as, 2 4 I. & N
. D e c . 5 9 9 (B IA 2 0 0 8 ). 26 U n d er o u r ow n p rec ed en t i n A u g u s tin , w e d isag ree . In A u g u sti n , u n d er C h ev ron d ef ere n ce , w e a ff

irm ed the B IA ’s re f u sa l to im p u te a p a re n t’s law f u l p e rm a n e n t r e sid e n t sta tu s to an al i en for purpos es of canc el l at i on of r emoval

. A ugus t i n, 520 F. 3d at270; s ee a l s o C ervant es , 597 F
. 3 d at236- 237; D eus v. H o lder, 59 1 F
. 3 d 8 0 7 , 8 1 1 -81 2 (5th C ir

. 2 0 0 9 ) (af firm ing B IA ’s r efus al t o i m pute par ent ’ s “r es i dence ”) ; C uevas - G as par , 430 F. 3d at1 0 3 2 ( Fernandez , J
. , di s s ent i ng) ( “[T] her e i s no l egal r eas on forus t o turn t o [pet i t i oner ’ s ] par ent s t o det erm i ne [ p e t i t i oner ’ s ] i nt ent [. ] ”)

. W e obs erved thatthe I N A , as amended, di d notexpr es s l yaddr es s the i s s ue of i m put at i on. A ugus t i n, 520 F
. 3 d a t2 6 9
. I tn e i th e rp e r m i tt e d i tn o rd i s a l l o w e d i t
. We d e ter m in e d th e B IA ’s in terp re tatio n to b e a re a so n a b le cons truct i on of the s t atut e. Id. a t 270- 272. W e di s t i ngui s hed re sid e n c e f

ro m d o m icile , b e c a u se u n d e r th e IN A , res id e n c e is d e f in e d a s a n a lien ’s “ p rin c ip a l, ac tu a l d w e llin g p lac e in f a c t, w ith o u t re g a rd to in ten t.” 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 0 1 (a )(3 3 ) (e m p h a s is27 added)

. T hus , “anyauthor i tyr egar di ng the i m pu tat i on of a
‘ dom i ci l e’ i s unavai l i ng t o the Pet i t i oner s [i n est abl i s hi ng the s t atut ory‘ r es i dence ’ ]

. ” C ervant es , 5 9 7 F. 3d at236 ( ci t i ng A u g u stin , 5 2 0 F .3 d a t 2 7 1 ). In A u g u stin , w e re jec ted th e N in th C i r cui t ’ s tr aj ect ory , and Pet i t i oner s b efor e us pr es entno compel l i ng ar gum entfora cha nge i n cour s e. 2. A s in A u g u sti n , P eti ti o n ers h ere fa il to ide n ti fystatu tory l anguage , r egul at oryl anguage , orl egi s l at i ve hi s t oryeven s ugges t i ng, m uch l es s m andat i ng, thata par ent ’ s r es i dencybe i mput e d t o mi no rc hil dren fo rpu rpo s e s of s a t i s fy i ng the TPS re q u ire m e n ts. A lth o u g h w e a re sy m p a th e tic to th e ir p lig h t, Pet i t i oner s have f

ai l ed t o per s uade us t hatthe pl ai n l anguage of the st atute do es no t co n tr o l. O n o u r rea d ing , the s ta tu tory req u ir em en ts o f T P S “c o u ld no t b e m o re c lear. ” C u ev as-G asp ar, 430 F. 3d at1032 ( Fernandez , J
. , di s s ent i ng)

. A T PS appl i cant m us ts how thathe ors he “ha s cont i nuous l yr es i ded i n the U ni t ed S ta te s s in c e s u c h d a te a s th e A tto rn e yG e n e ra l m a yd e s ig n a te .” 8 U
. S. C

. § 1 2 5 4 a(c) ( 1) ( A ) ( i i ) ( emphasi s added)

. W e have r ecogni zed thatthe C hevr on i nqui ryends i f C ongr es s has s poken di r ect l yt o t he ques t i on at i s s ue, i n w hi ch cas e “both the agenc yand the cour tm us tgi ve ef fec tt o the pl ai n l anguage of the s tatu te. ” Y u su p o v v . A tt ’yG en . , 5 1 8 F
. 3 d 1 8 5 , 1 9 7 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 8 )

. Al th o u g h we d o n o th e r e a p p l yCh e v r o n d e f e r e n c e , we re v iew th e sta tu te to d e ter m in e w h e th e r C o n g re ss h a s d ire c tly s poken t o t he ques t i on ati s s ue.

a. P et i t i on ers con t end that § 125 4a is “am biguou s” r egar di ng im p ut at i on s i m pl ybeca us e the s t atut e does not e x p licitly p e rm it o r dis a llo w it, a n d th e re is th e re f o re n o “ p lain m eani ng. ” W e di s agr ee. T he st atut e unquest i onabl yart i cul at esP eti ti o n ers argu e th at u n d er th e statuto rysch em e, th e IJ 8 and B IA hav e dis cret i on t o g rantT P S for hu m anit ari an reasons, 28 a r equi r emen t tha ta TP S appl i cantcont i nuous l yr es i de i n the U n ited S tate s f

ro m th e d a te d e sig n a ted b y th e A tto rn e yG e n e ra l. T he s t atut e then s peci fi es thatbr ief, cas ual , and i nnocent d e p a rtu re s g e n e ra lly d o n o t e f f e c t a f a ilu re to m a in tain c o n t i n u o u s r e s i d e n c e f

o r p u rp o s e s o f

th e TP S p r o g r a m. 8 U. S

. C. § 1254a( c) ( 4)

. N ot abl y , § 1254a( c) (4) makes no m ent i on of a l t e r n a t e m e th o d s o f

s a t i s f y i n g th e r e s i d e n c e r e q u i r e m e n t s . We d o n o t co n sid e r § 1 2 5 4 a to b e “ a m b ig u o u s” m e re lyb e c a u se it does notexp res s l yforbi d everypos s i bl e mechani s m for fu n cti o n al – b u t no t actua l – s a tisfac ti o n o f statuto ry requi r e ment s . El s e , ne a re ve rys t a tut e w ou l d b e “ a mbi gu ou s” and court s w o u ld have unf ett er ed fr eedom t o fas hi on cr eat i ve m e c h a n ism s f

o r sa ti s f y in g th e o th e rw ise c lea r re q u ire m e n ts m andat ed byC ongr es s . T hi s w e dec l i ne t o do. b. Byth e t e r ms o f

th e s t a tu t e , th e TPS p r o g r a m w as des i g n e d t o s h i e l d a l i e n s a l r e a d yi n th e c o u n tryf r o m r e mova l w hen a na tur al di s as t erors i m i l aroccurr enc e has r ender ed r emoval u n s a f

e . 8 U. S. C. § 1 2 5 4 a ( b ) ( 1 )

. W e s i mpl y wi l l not r ead i nt o an unambi guous s t atut oryr equi r ementan exc ept i on thatconvert s thi s s t atut e i nt o a pr ogr am of ent ryforan al i en. I d. § 1254a( c) ( 5) ( “N othi ng i n this s ect i on s hal l be cons trued as author i zi ng an al i en t o appl y for admi s s i on t o, ort o be admi t t ed to, the U ni t ed St at es i n or dert o appl yfort empora rypr ot ect ed sta tu s u n d e r th is s e c tio n .”). A n d , alth o u g h w e a g re e w ith P e t i t i o n e r s th a to u ri m m i g r a t i o n f r a m e w o r k v a l u e s f

a m i l y u n i ty, w e ca nn oton t ha tba s i s a l on e r e a d i nt o the un a mbi gu ou s TPS s t atut e an i ns truct i on byC ongr es s t o perm i ts at i s fac t i on of cl ear s t atut oryr equi r ement s v ia t he di s put ed mechani s m of im p utat i on . C om pare A ug ust i n, 52 0 F
. 3d 26 4, w i th C uev as-

8a n d m o re o v e r th e ye rre d in n o t ex e r c is in g it. T h is is d e mo n s tr a b l yf

a l s e . Th e p r o v i s i o n c i t e d b yP e t i t i o n e r s , 8 U. S

. C. § 1254a( c) ( 2) ( A ) ( i i ) , perm i t s w ai vero f pr ovi s i ons of § 1182, w h ich a p p li es e x clus ivelyto 8 U
. S

. C

. § 1 2 5 4 a (c )( 1 )(A )(i ii )’s re q u ire m e n t th a t th e a p p lica n t b e a d m iss ib le a s an im m ig ra n t,
“ e x c e p t a s o th e rw is e p ro v id e d u n d e r p a ra g ra p h (2 )( A ).” ( emphasi s added)

. T hi s pr ovi s i on i s i nappl i cabl e t o the “cont i nuous r es ide nce” and “c ont i nuous phy s i cal pr es ence ” req u ir em en ts atissue h ere . 8 U
. S

. C

. § 1 2 5 4 a(c )(1)(A )(i )-( ii ). 29 G as par , 430 F. 3d 1013.

c. P e tit io n e rs a ttem p t to e v a d e o u r c o m p e lli n g p re c e d e n t in A ug ust i n b ydis t i ng uis hi ng the un de r l y i ng s t a tut oryfram ew orks. W e a re unper s uaded. O n the contr ary , w e fi nd the di ffe r ent pu rposes of t he st atutes t o rende r i m pu t at i on even l ess appr opr i at e forthe TP S pr ogr am t han forcanc el l at i on of re m o v a l. T h e c a n c e llatio n o f re m o v a l re sid e n c yre q u ire m e n t is des i gned t o g au g e the ext entof an a l i en’ s t i es t o the U ni t ed St at es . A m i nor ’ s par ent ’ s r es i dence i n the U ni t ed St at es , though not di s pos i t i ve, i s r el evant t o a m i nor ’ s t i es t o the country . T he T PS progr am, bycontr as t , is d es i gned t o t empora r i l ypr event r emoval of al i ens dur i ng extr aor di naryan dt e mpo r a ryc o n d i t i ons that p rev en t safe return
. 8 U
. S

. C

. 1 2 5 4 a(b )( 1 )( C ). A m ino r’s par ent ’ s r es i dence i n the U ni t ed St at es i s notr el evantt o w hether thatm i norcan be “s afe l yr eturned” a tthe t i m e of t he i ni t i al des i gnat i on. A s i n A ugus t i n, “[a ] l though [thi s ] rul i ng does deny re lief to c e rta in a lien s, th a t alo n e c a n n o t r e n d e r [ it] unr eas onabl e. C ongr es s r es tr i ct ed re l i ef t o thos e al i ens w ho had [cont i nuous l yr es i ded i n the U ni t ed St at es fr om the des i gnat ed dat e. ] T he B I A ’ s r efus al t o cr eat e an exce pt i on s i m pl yheeds the s t atut e’ s pl ai n r equi r ement s . ” A ugus t i n, 520 F. 3d at271.30 3. Fi nal l y , ourco n clus ion a s t o the pl ai n l anguage of the s t atut oryr equi r ement s i s bol s t er ed by the consi s t entpos i t i on of the A t t orneyG ener al and the B I A

. See, e. g. , 73 Fed. R eg. 57 , 12 8, 57 , 13 2 ( O c t
. 1, 20 08 ) ( e xp l a i ni ng tha te xt e ns i on of TPS el i gi bi l i tyfornat i onal s of El Sal vador does notexpand el i gi bi l i tyt o thos e w ho have notcont i nuous l yr es i ded i n the U ni t ed St at es s i nce February13, 2001, and w ho have notbeen cont i nuous l ypr es ents i nce M ar ch 9, 2001) ; 63 Fed. R eg. 63, 593, 63, 594 ( N ov. 16, 1998) ( s t at i ng thatl at e r egi s tr at i on i s not i nt ended t o ext end t o persons w ho arr i ved i n the U ni t ed St at es af ter the p rog ram d esig n ati o n w as m ad e); see a lso E sco b ar, 24 I
. & N
. D ec. 231 ( B I A 2007) ( r ej ect i ng C u evas - G as parand r efus i ng t o al l ow i m put at i on forr es i dencyr equirem entof c a n c e llatio n o f

re m o v a l). T h e C e rv a n tes c o u rt w a s s im ilarly per s uaded, obs ervi ng that“s i nce 1998, w hen the r egul at i o ns pr ovi di ng forl at e i ni t i al T PS re gi s tr at i on w er e fi r s tadopt ed, the A t t orneyG ener al has cons i s t ent l yappl i ed thi s i nt erpr et at i on” and “ th e I NS w a s e mph a t i c th a tth o s e a p p l y i n g f o rl a t e i ni t i al TP S r e g i s tr a t i o n . . . mu s tme e ta l l o th e rr e q u i r e me n t s o f TPS i ncl udi ng pr es ence i n the U ni t ed St at es atthe t i m e the for ei gn stat e in q u esti o n w as de sign ated fo r T P S

. ” C erv an tes v
. H o lder, 597 F. 3d 2 2 9 , 235 ( 4th C i r . 2010) ( ci t at i ons and quot at i ons o m itted). B. P et i t i on ers add i t i on al l ycon t end th a tthe p hrase “m ost r ece ntdes i gnat i on” underthe “c onti n uous phy s i cal pr es ence ” re q u ire m e n t, 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 4 a (c )(1 )(A )(i), sh o u ld b e re a d to r efe rnott o the i ni t i al des i gnat i on of a s t at e forT PS, buti ns t ead t o t he mostr ece ntext ensi o n of a s t at e’ s T PS desi gnat i on. Pet i t i oner s ’ ar gum enti s unavai l i ng.31 U nderthe pl ai n l anguage of the stat ut orys cheme, an e x te n s io n o f

T P S d o e s n o t c o n s titu te a “ d e s ig n a tio n .” D es i gnat i on of a f

or ei gn stat e for TPS t akes eff ect“upon the d ate of p u b li ca ti o n o f th e d esig n ati o n . ” 8 U
. S

. C

. § 1 2 5 4 a(b )(2). T he s t atut e s peci fi cal l ypr ovi des foran “[ e] xt ens i on of des i gnat i on, ” s t at i ng that the A t t orney G ener al m ayext end the peri od of des i gnat i on. I d. § 1254a( b) ( 3) ( C )

. T o the ext ent P e t i t i o n e r s s e e k t o e mp h a s i z e th e p h r a s e “ mo s tr e c e n t , ” we agr ee w i th the C our tof A ppeal s forthe Four th C i r cui tthat“the s t atut ory phr as e ‘ m os t r ece nt des i gnat i on’ m er el ydi s t i ngui s hes the curr entdes i gnat ion of a f or ei gn s t at e forthe TP S pr ogr am fr om anypr i orT PS progr am des i gnat i ons of thats ame for ei gn s t at e. ” C ervant es , 597 F. 3d at 235 ( pr ovi di ng as an exa m pl e the p o ss ib ili tyo f

tw o se p a ra te d isa ste rs in th e sa m e sta te lea d in g to tw o sep ara te de sign ati o n s). In d e e d , rea d in g “ m o st re c e n t d e sig n a tio n ” to a p p lyto eac h ext ens i on w oul d convert the T PS progr am i nt o a pr ogr am of entr y , w her ebyeac h ext ens i on of TP S w oul d cont i nual l yand s ubs t ant i al l yexpand t he cat egory of el i gi bl e al i ens . W e dec l i ne to re a d th e sta tu te in a m a n n e r so a t o d d s w ith its n a rro w ly circu m scribe d req u ir em en ts reg ard ing eli g ibil ityfo r T em p o rary P rotec ted S tatu s. S ee 8 U
. S

. C

. § 1 2 5 4 a(c )(1)(A ). A ddi t i onal l y , w hi l e notdi s pos i t i ve t o our r eadi ng of the s t atut e, w e not e thatt he B I A and A t t orn eyG ener al have t aken the cons i s t ent pos i t i on that an ext ens i on of T PS does notchange the dat e of de s i gnat i on for purpos es of the “c ont i nuous phy s i cal pr es ence ” r equi r ement
. See, e. g. , 72 Fed. R eg. 29, 529, 29, 533 ( M ay29, 2 0 0 7) ( “A n ext ens i on of a TPS des i gnat i on does not change the r equi r ed d ates of cont i nuous r es i dence and con t i nu ou s p hy si cal presence . . . ”) ( em ph asi s added ); see al so C erv an tes, 597 F. 3d at234- 235 ( s um m ar i zi ng the B I A and A t t orneyG ener al ’ s cons i s t en t p os i t i on and obs ervi ng thatthe ext ens i on not i ces have e xpr es s l yr equi r ed r egi s tr ant s t o m eetthe32 d ates se t bythe o ri g inal d esig n ati o n o f T P S ). C. W i thoutthe nec es s i tyof r es ort i ng t o C hevr on oreven Ski dm or e defe r ence , w e det erm i ne that C ongr es s sp o ke u n a m b ig u o u slyw h e n it r e q u ire d th a t T P S a p p lica n ts demonstr at e cont i nuous r es i dencyfr om the dat e des i gnat ed by the A t t orneyG ener al and cont i nuous phy s i cal pr es ence fr om the m os tr ece ntdes i gnat i on. “I f the i nt entof C ongr es s i s cl ear , that i s th e e n d o f

th e m a t t e r ; f

o rth e c o u r t , a s w e l l a s th e a g e n c y, m us tgi ve ef

fec tt o the unambi guous l yexpr es s ed i nt entof C o n g re ss .” C h e v ro n , U .S .A ., In c . v . N a tu ra l R e s. D e f. C o u n c il, I nc. , 467 U
. S. 837, 842- 843 ( 1984)

. “[A ] s t atut e’ s s i l ence on a gi ven i s s ue does notconfe rgap- fi l l i ng p o w er on a n agenc y unl es s the ques t i on i s i n fac ta gap–an ambi gui ty t i ed up w i th the pr ovi s i ons of the s t atut e. ” Li n- Z heng v. A t t ’ y G en . , 557 F. 3d 147, 156 ( 3d C i r . 2 009) ( en banc ) ( quot i ng Sun W en C hen v. A t t ’ yG en. , 491 F. 3d 100, 113 ( 3d C i r . 2007) , overrul ed on other gr ounds by L i n- Z heng, 557 F. 3d 147)

. W e ar e i n acc or d w i th the C ervant es concurren ce , and r eac h “the s ame r es ul t[as the C ervant es court ] s i m pl ybyconclud i ng thatC ongr es s s poke u n am b igu o u slyas to th is p arti cu lar requ ir em en t fo r t em p o rary p ro te c te d s ta tu s .” C e rv a n te s , 5 9 7 F .3 d a t 2 3 7 -2 3 8 (T ra x le r, C .J ., concurr i ng) ( ci t i ng G en. D ynami cs L and S y s . , I nc. v. C l i ne, 540 U
. S

. 5 8 1 , 6 0 0 (20 0 4 ) (“[D ]ef ere n ce to [th e a g en cy ’s] st atuto ry i nt erpr et at i on i s cal l ed fo r onl yw hen the devi ces of j udi ci al cons truct i on have been tr i ed and found t o y i el d no cl ear s ens e of co n g r e s s i o n a l i n t e n t
. ” ) ) ; s e e a l s o Cue v a s - Gas p a r , 4 3 0 F. 3 d at 1 0 3 2 (F e rn a n d e z , J ., d is s e n tin g ). W e hol d thatthe “c ont i nuous r es i dence ” r equi r ement cann ot be m etvia i m pu t at i on and that the st atutory t erm “m ost re c e n t d e sig n a tio n ” a p p lies to th e o rig in a l d e sig n a tio n o f a sta te for T P S and no t t o subsequ ent ex t ensi on s. A ccordi ng l y , becau se33 Pet i t i oner s have i ndi s put abl yfai l ed t o person al l ys at i s fythe “cont i nuous r es i dence ” and “ cont i nuo us phy s i cal pr es ence ” r equi r ement s , theyar e s t atut or i l yi nel i gi bl e forT PS and th e r e f o r e we wi l l de ny t he i rp e t i t i o n s f o rr e v i e w. S e e 8 U. S

. C. § 1 2 5 4 a(c )(1)(A )(i )-( ii ). V. W e ar e l eft w i th the m att er of D e Leon- O choa’ s pet i t i on f o rr e v i e w o f

th e BI A ’ s d e n i a l o f

h i s a p p l i c a t i o n s f

o ra s y l u m, w i thhol di ng of r emoval , and C A T pr ot ect i on. Forthe r eas ons th a t f o ll o w , w e w ill d e n yre v iew o f th e B IA ’s o rd e r o n th is i s s ue. W e r evi ew the B I A ’ s decisi o n fors ubs t ant i al evi dence , and fa ctual det erm i nat i ons ar e “c oncl us i ve unl es s any r eas onabl e adj udi cat orw oul d be compel l ed t o concl u de t o the c o n tr a r y . ” 8 U. S. C. § 1 2 5 2 ( b ) ( 4 ) ( B)

. An a l i e n ma yb e g r a n t ed a sy lu m if

h e is a “ re f

u g e e ” w h o is “ u n a b le o r u n w ill in g ” to retu rn to h is na ti v e c o u n try“b ec au se o f p erse cu ti o n o r a w el l

- f o u n d e d f e a ro f p e r s e c u t i o n o n a c c o u n to f r a c e , r e l i g i o n, nat i onal i ty , m ember s hi p i n a part i cul ars oci al gr oup, orpol i t i cal opi ni on . . . ” 8 U
. S. C

. § 1101( a) ( 42)

. D e Leon- O choa c oncede d thathe di d nots uffe rpas tper s ecut i on and ther efor e t o pr evai l on hi s cl ai m he mu stes t abl i s h a w el l

- founded f earof per s ecut i on i f r eturned t o H ondur as , by demonstr at i ng both a subj ect i ve and an obj ect i ve fe arof futur e per s ecut i on. See, e. g. , L i e v. A s h c ro f t, 3 9 6 F .3 d 5 3 0 , 5 3 6 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). W e have re vi ew ed t he re cor d and concl ude t hatther e w as s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e t o s u p p o r tth e I J a n d BI A’ s d e n i a l o f De L e o n -O c h o a ’s a p p lica tio n f o r a sy lu m . P e tit io n e r c laim s h e is in d an g er o f f

u ture p erse cu ti o n b ase d o n a lon g -st an d ing interfami l y b l ood feud. H i s cont ent i ons ar e bel i ed bythe r ecor d. Pet i t i oner ’ s brot her s have r emai ned i n H ondur as , unm ol es t ed.W e not e thatthe att orney s r epr es enti n g Pet i t i oner s on 9 thes e pet i t i ons forr evi ew have done s o on a pr o- bono bas i s and w e t han k them for these s ervi ces, w hich hav e been i n the hi gh est tr ad it ion o f th e b ar. 34 P et i t i on er hi m sel f l i ved i n H on du ras for si x y ears aft er t he las t a l l e g e d f

e u d

- b a s e d mu r d e r , u n mo l e s t e d

. P e t i t i o n e r ’ s o wn document aryevi dence i ndi cat es thatthe bl ood feud upon w hi ch hi s as y l um cl ai m i s p r emi s ed ende d i n 1996, and he ha s present ed n o ev i den ce of add i t i on al i nter -fam i l ystri fe i n the l ast d ec ad e . A cc o rdin g ly , w e c an n o t con clud e tha t th e IJ a n d B IA e r r e d i n d e n y i n g De Le o n - Oc h o a ’ s a p p l i c a t i o n f o ra s y l u m. De L eon- O choa’ s fai l ur e t o m ee t hi s bur den of pr oof foras y l um n e c e ss a rilyim p e ls th e c o n c lu sio n th a t h e c a n n o t s a tisf yh is bur den of pr oof forw i thhol di ng of r emoval

. See, e. g. , G uo v. A s h c ro f t, 3 8 6 F .3 d 5 5 6 , 5 6 1 n .4 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 4 ). F i n a l l y , t o q u a l i f

yf o rp r o t e c t i o n u n d e rth e CA T , De L eon- O choa mustpr ove that“i ti s m or e l i kel ythan notthathe [ ] w o u ld b e to rt u re d if re m o v e d to [ H o n d u r a s ].” 8 C .F .R . § 1208. 16( c) ( 2) ; s ee Sevoi an v. A s hcr oft , 290 F. 3d 166, 174- 175 ( 3d C i r . 2002)

. Pet i t i oner has i dent i fi ed no evi dence t o compel the conc l us i on thati ti s m or e l i kel ythan notth at he w i l l be to rtu re d u p o n re tu rn to H o n d u ra s. A c c o rd in g ly , w e a g re e w ith th e BI A’ s d e n i a l o f h i s a p p l i c a t i o n f o rp r o t e c t i o n u n d e rth e CA T a n d wi l l d e n yth e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w.

***** For the for egoi ng r eas ons , w e w i l l deny the pet i t i ons for r e v i e w. 9