Opinion ID: 612582
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Imputation of Abandonment

Text: Here, the BIA agreed with the IJ that, because Khoshfahm was an unemancipated minor for almost the entire period that he lived in Iran, it should look to the intent of Khoshfahm's parents to determine whether he had abandoned his LPR status by the time he attempted to reenter the United States. Because it concluded that Khoshfahm's parents had in fact abandoned their LPR status, it imputed this abandonment to Khoshfahm. Under BIA precedent, if a petitioner's parent abandons his or her LPR status while the petitioner is in his or her custody and control, then the parental abandonment must be imputed to the child. See Matter of Huang, 19 I. & N. Dec. at 750 n. 1 (Abandonment of lawful permanent resident status of a parent is imputed to a minor child who is subject to the parent's custody and control.); Matter of Zamora, 17 I. & N. Dec. 395, 396 (BIA 1980) (We hold that this voluntary and intended abandonment by the mother is imputed to the applicant, who was an unemancipated minor ... at the time his mother abandoned her lawful resident status.); Matter of Winkens, 15 I. & N. Dec. 451, 452 (BIA 1975) (holding that [t]he abandonment of [the parents of petitioner's] permanent resident status is imputed to [petitioner], who was subject to their custody and control when they abandoned). These decisions are loosely derived from the BIA's prior decision in Matter of Bauer, 10 I. & N. Dec. 304 (BIA 1963). There, the BIA held that no reentry under INA § 101(a)(13) was made by the 19-year-old petitioner upon his return to the United States three years after departing this country in the custody and control of his parents. Id. at 308. The BIA reasoned that because the petitioner was under a legal compulsion to follow and accompany his parents that rendered his departure involuntary, he had made no reentry upon his return on which to predicate a ground of deportation. Id. Matter of Zamora, 17 I. & N. Dec. at 397, expressly overrules Bauer, but states that to the extent that Matter of Bauer ... can be cited for the general proposition that, because a minor child is compelled to accompany his parents if they depart from the United States, the intent of the parents with regard to the departure (i.e., whether or not they, the parents, intend to abandon their resident status) is imputed to the accompanying child, Bauer still stands. It is not clear, however, that Bauer does stand for this general proposition, and Matter of Zamora cites to no other authority to support its reasoning. As a result, the source of the BIA's position with respect to imputation of abandonment of LPR status remains obscure. Nevertheless, we agree with our concurring colleague that, because the BIA is charged with explaining what constitutes a returning resident immigrant within the meaning of [INA § 101(a)(27)(A)], id., we defer to its interpretation to the extent that it is reasonable. Cf. Trung Thanh Hoang v. Holder, 641 F.3d 1157, 1160 (9th Cir.2011) (noting that we apply Chevron deference to the BIA's reasonable interpretations of ambiguous terms in the INA); Abebe v. Gonzales, 493 F.3d 1092, 1100-01 (9th Cir.2007) (noting that the principles of deference to administrative agency decisions ... are applicable when a court reviews the BIA's interpretation of the [INA]). Imputation of abandonment of LPR status from parents to child is, in many cases, consistent with our precedent. Although we have never expressly opined on the issue, we do in several other areas of immigration law impute the parent's status, intent, or state of mind to a child residing with the parent. See Saucedo-Arevalo v. Holder, 636 F.3d 532, 532-33 (9th Cir.2011) (listing cases). As we have firmly recognized, children are, legally speaking, incapable of forming the necessary intent to remain indefinitely in a particular place ... and thus cannot determine their own domicile.... Mercado-Zazueta, 580 F.3d at 1106 (holding that imputation applies for purposes of the five-year permanent residence requirement) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). Because a child cannot legally form an intent as to his domicile, imputation from parent to child of abandonment of LPR status while the child is in the parents' custody and control is certainly, in cases such as this, reasonable. [2] This petition for review does not call on us to fully explore or firmly opine on the full extent to which imputation of abandonment of LPR status is reasonable, or on its possible limitations; we reserve this question for a later date. Under the BIA decisions and our own precedent, we hold that, because a child cannot legally form an intent as to domicile, the intent of the child's LPR parents as to whether they will return to live in the United States is imputed to the child (over whom the parents have custody and control) during the period of the child's unemancipation. At the point at which the child becomes an adult, however, he may legally demonstrate his intent separate from that of his parents.