Amponsah v. Holder, Jr., No. 11-71311 (9th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this CasePetitioner sought review of the BIA's decision upholding the IJ's pretermission of her adjustment of status application. The BIA pretermitted petitioner's application on the ground that she did not satisfy the definition of "child" under 8 U.S.C. 1101(b)(1)(E) because she was not adopted before her 16th birthday. The court held that the BIA's blanket rule against recognizing state courts' nunc pro tunc adoption decrees constituted an impermissible construction of section 1101(b)(1)(E) under Chevron because it gave little or no weight to the federal policy of keeping families together, failed to afford deference to valid state court judgments in an area of the law that was primarily a matter of state concern, and addressed the possibility of immigration fraud through a sweeping, blanket rule rather than considering the validity of nunc pro tunc adoption decrees on a case-by-case basis. The court also held that the BIA's determination that petitioner engaged in marriage fraud violated her rights to due process of law. Accordingly, the court granted the petition for review.
Court Description: Immigration. The panel granted Doris Amponsah Apori’s petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision holding that she did not satisfy the definition of “child” under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(b)(1)(E) for the purposes of adjustment of status, because she was not adopted before her 16th birthday. The panel held under Chevron that the BIA’s blanket rule against recognizing states’ nunc pro tunc adoption decrees was an unreasonable and impermissible construction of § 1101(b)(1), and that case-by-case consideration of such adoption decrees is required. The panel also held that the BIA’s determination that Apori engaged in marriage fraud violated her due process rights.
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on September 12, 2013.
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.