Opinion ID: 203825
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Effect of Prior Agency Decision

Text: Lastly, the government argues that we should defer to a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision in Matter of Varela, 13 I & N Dec. 453 (BIA 1970). In Varela, the BIA held that an alien spouse ceases to be a spouse, and hence an immediate relative, when a citizen spouse, petitioning on the alien spouse's behalf, dies before the alien spouse's adjustment of status application is due. Id. at 453-54. As explained above, we conclude that the language, text, structure, and context of the INA statutory scheme plainly and unambiguously indicate that Congress intended for surviving spouses such as Mrs. Taing qualify for immediate relative status for purposes of § 1151(b)(2)(A)(i); thus, we need not accord Chevron deference to the BIA's decision in Varela. Even if we were to consider Varela under the less deferential standard articulated in Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U.S. 134, 65 S.Ct. 161, 89 L.Ed. 124 (1944), it fails to persuade us for two main reasons. [13] See Lockhart, 561 F.3d at 622 (holding that Varela is not entitled to either Skidmore or Chevron deference). First, the opinion summarily rules in favor of the government and does not engage in an adequate analysis of the statutory text. See id.; Freeman, 444 F.3d at 1038. Second, the BIA later found this decision to be extra-jurisdictional in Matter of Sano, 19 I & N Dec. 299 (BIA 1985), thereby making Varela a non-precedential decision. [14] See Lockhart, 561 F.3d at 622; Freeman, 444 F.3d at 1038.