Scialabba v. Cuellar de Osorio
Holding
The Board of Immigration Appeals has interpreted the Child Status Protection Act as providing a remedy only to "aged-out" non-citizens " that is, those who turned twenty-one while their visa application is pending " who qualified or could have qualified as principal beneficiaries of a visa petition, rather than only as derivative beneficiaries piggy-backing on a parent. That is a permissible construction of the statute.
Judgment
Reversed and remanded, 5-4, in an opinion by Elena Kagan on Jun 9, 2014. Chief Justice Roberts filed an opinion concurring in the judgement, in which Justice Scalia joined. Justice Alito filed a dissenting opinion. Justice Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion, which Justice Breyer joined, and in which Justice Thomas joined except as to footnote 3.
Issue: (1) Whether Section 1153(h)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act” which provides rules for determining whether particular aliens qualify as “children” so that they can obtain visas or adjustments of their immigration status as derivative beneficiaries of sponsored family member immigrants (also known as “primary beneficiaries”) ” unambiguously grants relief to all aliens who qualify as “child” derivative beneficiaries at the time a visa petition is filed but age out of qualification by the time the visa becomes available to the primary beneficiary; and (2) whether the Board of Immigration Appeals reasonably interpreted Section 1153(h)(3).
Recommended Citation: Scialabba v. Cuellar de Osorio, SCOTUSblog, https://www.scotusblog.com/cases/mayorkas-v-cuellar-de-osorio/