Court Opinion

ID: 9467891
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 01:58:51.317551+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:40:34.653029
License: Public Domain

FLETCHER, Circuit Judge,
concurring and dissenting:
I concur with the majority that Kalezic was ineligible for an adjustment of status under 8 U.S.C. § 1255(a). I disagree, however, with the majority’s refusal to give Kalezic the benefit of section 1251(f) which provides in pertinent part, “the provisions of this section ... shall not apply to an alien ... who is the spouse ... of a United States citizen .... ”
I do not quarrel with the majority’s selection of the date of the Immigration Law Judge’s decision as the appropriate time to assess marital status for purposes of determining whether deportation proceedings should be terminated under 8 U.S.C. § 1251(f). However, at the time of the Immigration Judge’s decision in this case, Kalezic was still married. To avoid the literal application of section 1251(f), the majority allows the Immigration Judge to assess the viability of the marriage and to allow deportation proceedings to go forward even though the alien is “technically” married. This is without justification. Cf. Whetstone v. INS, 561 F.2d 1303, 1306-07 (9th Cir. 1977) (where alien is admitted as a fiancee or fiance of citizen, viability of marriage cannot be considered for purposes of statute directing the Attorney General to record admission for permanent resident if “marriage .. . shall occur within three months after the entry”). The words of Judge Sneed, concurring in the result in Whetstone, are as appropriate here as in Whetstone — “The desire of the Service to engraft ... a requirement of ‘satisfactoriness,’ or ‘continuing viability,’ of the marriage is understandable but without statutory authority. We cannot apply a statute that Congress has not enacted.” 561 F.2d at 1309.
I would vacate the order of deportation.