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

Heading: Mrs. Taing's Petition

Text: The facts in this case are undisputed and stipulated to by both parties. Mrs. Taing is a Cambodian citizen and is the surviving spouse of Mr. Taing. She was admitted to the United States as a non-immigrant visitor for pleasure on June 17, 2004. She met Mr. Taing during her visit and the two were married on October 4, 2004. Mr. Taing was a naturalized United States citizen. In December 2004, Mr. Taing filed an I-130 petition, seeking to have his spouse, Mrs. Taing, classified as an immediate relative for purposes of her immigrant visa petition. Mrs. Taing also filed a request for work authorization and an I-485 application to adjust her status. The government approved her application for work authorization. The couple resided together in Lowell, Massachusetts from the time of their marriage until Mr. Taing died of a stroke on July 2, 2005. On September 13, 2005, the government issued a notice for Mrs. Taing and her now-deceased husband to appear for an interview on their applications. The government scheduled the interview for October 13, 2005. Mrs. Taing appeared for the interview without her husband. Subsequently, USCIS terminated action on Mr. Taing's I-130 petition and denied Mrs. Taing's I-485 application. On April 10, 2006, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) mailed Mrs. Taing a Notice to Appear, charging her with overstaying her visa. On March 14, 2007, Mrs. Taing filed a Petition for Writ of Mandamus and Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief in the district court. Mrs. Taing requested that the district court direct USCIS to: (1) process Mr. Taing's I-130 petition and her I-485 application; and (2) classify her as an immediate relative spouse of a United States citizen. The government filed a motion to dismiss on August 2, 2007. On December 12, 2007, the district court issued a memorandum and order denying the government's motion to dismiss, remanding the case to USCIS for further proceedings in accordance with its decision. Taing v. Chertoff, 526 F.Supp.2d 177, 179 (D.Mass.2007). The district court held that Mrs. Taing qualifies as an immediate relative under the plain meaning of § 1151(b)(2)(A)(i). Id. at 187. The district court reasoned that because the statute's meaning was unambiguous, Chevron deference was inappropriate. The court based its holding on Freeman v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 1031 (9th Cir.2006), and Robinson v. Chertoff, No. 06-5702, 2007 WL 1412284 (D.N.J. May 14, 2007), rev'd sub nom, Robinson v. Napolitano, 554 F.3d 358 (3d Cir.2009), two cases which reached the same result. The government appeals the district court's order and argues that under the plain meaning of the statute Mrs. Taing should not be classified as an immediate relative. Alternatively, the government argues that even if this court disagrees with the government's reading, the statute's language should be deemed ambiguous, and that we should defer to USCIS's interpretation under Chevron principles. We disagree with the government's arguments and affirm the district court's ruling. The meaning of the statute is unambiguous and Mrs. Taing qualifies as an immediate relative under the statute.