Opinion ID: 77675
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Derivative Benefits

Text: 17 The final issue, and one of first impression in this circuit, is whether the withholding statute provides for derivative benefits for an alien's spouse. 18 In interpreting a statute, our first step is to determine whether the language at issue has a plain and unambiguous meaning with regard to the particular dispute in the case. D'Angelo v. ConAgra Foods, Inc., 422 F.3d 1220, 1235 (11th Cir. 2005). Where Congress includes particular language in one section of a statute but omits it in another section of the same Act, it is generally presumed that Congress acts intentionally and purposely in the disparate inclusion or exclusion. Russello v. United States, 464 U.S. 16, 23, 104 S.Ct. 296, 300, 78 L.Ed.2d 17 (1983) (citation and quotations omitted). Also, [w]here Congress knows how to say something but chooses not to, its silence is controlling. CBS Inc. v. PrimeTime 24 Joint Venture, 245 F.3d 1217, 1226 (11th Cir. 2001) (citing In re Griffith, 206 F.3d 1389, 1394 (11th Cir. 2000) ( en banc ) (citation and quotations omitted, alteration in original)). 19 Although the asylum statute explicitly creates derivative rights for the spouse of a petitioner, the withholding statute contains no mention of derivative rights. Compare 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(3)(A) and 8 C.F.R. §§ 207.7 and 208.21, with 8 U.S.C. § 1231. Congress's silence thus dictates our holding in this case: there are no derivative benefits associated with a grant of withholding of removal. See also Huang v. I.N.S., 436 F.3d 89, 95 (2d Cir. 2006) (denying derivative benefits); Ali v. Ashcroft, 394 F.3d 780, 782 n. 1 (9th Cir. 2005) (same). 20 Accordingly, we deny the petition as to Carmen's claim for withholding of removal.