Opinion ID: 203825
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Automatic Revocation

Text: The government states that § 1155 allows the Secretary of Homeland Security (Secretary) to revoke the approval of any petition approved by him under section 1154 at any time for what he considers to be good and sufficient cause. 8 U.S.C. § 1155. Further, the government states that, by regulation, the Secretary has established that the citizen petitioner's death automatically revokes approval of a visa petition. [10] See 8 C.F.R. § 205.1(a)(3)(i)(C). The government contends that if the visa petitioner's death is sufficient to revoke an approved petition, it should be sufficient to revoke an unapproved petition. Although the government did not raise this precise argument below, we nevertheless go to the merits and conclude that the automatic revocation provision is inapplicable here. First, it is significant that this provision applies only to approved petitions, whereas the I-130 petition at issue here is pending. We are not convinced that we should extend a regulation that applies to the revocation of approved petitions to the pending petition context. See Lockhart, 561 F.3d at 622 (noting that [t]he Secretary provides no evidence establishing that the government has, since 1938, denied pending immediate relative petitions solely on the basis of the citizen spouse's death, nor ... any historical analysis linking the `immediate relative' provision to the automatic revocation of approved petitions). Second, and more importantly, the government's reading of the automatic revocation provision's applicability to pending petitions is contrary to Congress's intent in § 1151(b)(2)(A)(i). Where a regulation conflicts with congressional intent as expressed in a statutory scheme, courts must give effect to congressional intent. See Succar, 394 F.3d at 10-11 (holding that a regulation promulgated by the Attorney General was invalid where it conflicted with Congress's intent as expressed in a statute). Here, as expressed above in our discussion of Congress's intent behind § 1151(b)(2)(A)(i), it is clear that Congress did not intend for Mr. Taing's death to cut off Mrs. Taing's eligibility for immediate relative status. [11] See also Pierno v. INS, 397 F.2d 949, 950-51 (2d Cir.1968) (concluding automatic revocation inappropriate where petitioner died during a delay in considering visa petition and that allowing wooden application of rules for automatic revocation would result in many aliens being denied adjustment by the happenstance of a spouse's death.).