Valencia v. Lynch, No. 13-70414 (9th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CasePetitioner, a citizen of Mexico, seeks adjustment of his immigration status under the “grandfathering” exception for beneficiaries of labor certification applications filed before April 30, 2001. Applying the Chevron framework, the court concluded that the statute at issue in this case, 8 U.S.C. 1255(i), is ambiguous because Congress did not speak to the question of whether that section applies to substitute beneficiaries of labor certifications. The court concluded that it was permissible for the Attorney General, pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 1245.10(j), to interpret the statute to preclude beneficiaries substituted after the sunset date from obtaining grandfathered status. Therefore, the court concluded that 8 C.F.R. 1245.10(j) is entitled to deference. Because the BIA properly denied petitioner's application for adjustment, the court denied the petition for review.
Court Description: Immigration. The panel denied Manuel Valencia’s petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ denial of adjustment of status under a regulation that precludes an alien substituted for the previous beneficiary of a labor certification application after a sunset date from claiming to be a grandfathered alien. The panel held that the Attorney General’s regulation, 8 C.F.R. § 1245.10(j), is entitled to deference under Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984). The panel held that 8 U.S.C. § 1255(i), the statute that allows a beneficiary of a labor certification application filed on or before April 30, 2001, to apply for adjustment, is ambiguous because it uses only the general term “beneficiaries,” not the more specific term “substitute beneficiaries.” The panel further held that it was permissible for the Attorney General to interpret the statute to preclude beneficiaries substituted after the sunset date from obtaining grandfathered status. VALENCIA V. LYNCH 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.