Opinion ID: 811828
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Absurd Result

Text: This Court’s one recognized exception to the plain meaning rule is absurdity of results. CBS, 245 F.3d at 1228. We have observed, “[t]hough venerable, the principle is rarely applied, because the result produced by the plain meaning canon must be truly absurd before this principle trumps it. Otherwise, clearly expressed legislative decisions would be subject to the policy predilections of judges.” Merritt v. Dillard Paper Co., 120 F.3d 1181, 1188 (11th Cir. 1997). “[I]t is irrelevant that we may not have made the same policy decision had the matter been ours to decide if we cannot say that it is absurd, ridiculous, or ludicrous for Congress to have decided the matter in the way the plain meaning of the statutory language indicates it did.” CBS, 245 F.3d at 1228 (quotations and alterations omitted). 13 Case: 11-15675 Date Filed: 11/13/2012 Page: 14 of 28 The Immigration Service attempts to show the absurdity of the plain meaning of the CAA in two ways. First, it points to the CAA’s legislative history; and second, it presents various hypothetical scenarios resulting from the plain meaning in which it contends the theoretical outcomes would be absurd. The Immigration Service relies on the legislative history indicating that the spousal provision was added to promote “family unity”3 to show absurd results. See Gonzalez, 980 F.2d at 1421 (“The purpose of the [CAA’s] provision permitting a spouse and child of a Cuban alien to obtain permanent residence is to promote family unity.”). The legislative history is silent, however, on the issue of the assignment of a rollback date for a non-Cuban spouse who marries a Cuban national after the Cuban national is given permanent resident status. Despite this silence, the articulated legislative intent of family unity is furthered by giving the earlier rollback date to a non-Cuban spouse, as the non-Cuban spouse could get a 3 See H.R. Rep. No. 89-1978, at 5-9 (1966), reprinted in 1966 U.S.C.C.A.N. 3792, 379699 (August 4, 1966, letter of Deputy Att’y Gen. Ramsey Clark) (suggesting the CAA’s spousal provision was included “[i]n order to maintain the unity of the family . . . to provide for the adjustment of status thereunder of the spouse and children of the Cuban who is the principle beneficiary of this bill, regardless of their nationality and nativity, if they are living with him in the United States”); Adjustment of Status for Cuban Refugees: Hearing on H.R. 15182, H.R. 15183, H.R. 16908, H.R. 10808, and H.R. 13393 Before Subcomm. No. 1 of the H. Comm. on the Judiciary, 89th Cong., 36, 40 (1966) (“I think the Congress took a very strong position in the law last year as to reuniting families.” (statement of Nicholas deB. Katzenbach, Att’y Gen. of the United States)), (“I think that this proposition to reunite families is in a humane direction.” (statement of Rep. Peter W. Rodino, Jr., Member, Subcomm. No. 1 of the H. Comm. on the Judiciary)). 14 Case: 11-15675 Date Filed: 11/13/2012 Page: 15 of 28 jump start on his or her path to naturalization. Not only is the plain meaning of the statute not absurd, it arguably furthers the legislative intent of family unity. The Immigration Service presents several hypothetical scenarios in which a non-Cuban spouse is given “greater” benefits than the Cuban national in order to show the plain meaning of the statute could yield absurd results. The examples involve the non-Cuban spouse receiving an earlier rollback date than the Cuban national, and a non-Cuban spouse receiving a rollback date preceding the Cuban’s presence in the United States, potentially to a date when the Cuban national was married to someone else. The Immigration Service argues “[t]hese outcomes, resulting from a ‘literal reading’ of the CAA, would be absurd because the nonCuban spouse would be receiving benefits of the CAA to which the Cuban spouse would not be accorded.” Further, the literal interpretation “would give no credence to the statutory intent of ‘family unity’ because non-Cuban spouses would be provided retroactive benefits before a ‘family’ ever existed.” We are not convinced the Immigration Service’s hypothetical scenarios demonstrate absurd results, as the “rollback provision” in the CAA is a special benefit carved out for Cuban nationals. Congress gave Cubans this special benefit, and giving a non-Cuban spouse (no matter the date of marriage) the same benefit is no more absurd than giving Cubans this special benefit. If Congress 15 Case: 11-15675 Date Filed: 11/13/2012 Page: 16 of 28 carved out this provision for Cuban nationals, there is no reason why Congress cannot treat the spouse of a Cuban national the same way. Even if a particular application of the rollback formula may lead to an arguably anomalous result (such as granting permanent resident status to a non-Cuban applicant as of an earlier date than the Cuban spouse), we cannot say that Congress could not have intended to apply a uniform rollback formula to all applicants, Cuban and nonCuban alike. Indeed, there is nothing absurd about using a single rollback formula for all CAA applicants, if only for greater ease of administration. In light of our “exacting standard” for finding absurdity, we conclude the Immigration Service has not shown that the plain meaning of Section 1 of the CAA would yield “the type of truly absurd or ludicrous results which would permit us to depart from the plain meaning of the statute.” See CBS, 245 F.3d at 1228-29. 16 Case: 11-15675 Date Filed: 11/13/2012 Page: 17 of 28