Court Opinion

ID: 9815366
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 00:49:25.485187+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:01:58.896098
License: Public Domain

ROVNER, Circuit Judge,
concurring.
I agree with the majority’s resolution of the issues presented to this court. I write separately only to note that the last sentences of the order are dicta as we determined that the issue is waived. In Zhang v. Gonzales, 434 F.3d 993, 999 (7th Cir.2006), we recognized that the amendment concerning forcible abortions protected spouses where a traditional marriage ceremony had taken place but a legal marriage was not possible because of China’s restrictive population control measures. At the other extreme, in Zhu v. Gonzales, 465 F.3d 316, 321 (7th Cir.2006) we recognized that protection did not extend to someone who was a mere boyfriend, where there had been no marriage ceremony of any kind nor even a suggestion that they planned to wed. Chen’s situation, had it been properly presented, would have fallen in the middle, as it is undisputed that he had a traditional marriage ceremony, but he did not obtain the stamp of government *561approval. This court has not yet determined whether a spouse for purposes of protection under the amendment, can include a person who is married in a traditional or religious ceremony, but not legally married. We should decide that only after it is fully briefed and argued, and not in a cursory reference in a case in which it is not raised.