Antonia Tavares Dodig v. Immigration and Naturalization Service

Good Law
9 F.3d 1418·93 Daily Journal DAR 14735·1993 WL 477270·1993 U.S. App. LEXIS 30030·93 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8587
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitNovember 22, 199392-70384California481 words

Opinion

Opinion

Kleinfeld, J.

Petitioner conceded deportability, asked for a six month delay, and got it. She appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), arguing that the immigration judge should have granted her husband’s unadjudi-cated petition to obtain immediate relative preference for her. Her husband had died before the petition was adjudicated. The BIA held that the immigration judge lacked jurisdiction to grant the petition. We affirm.

Petitioner entered the United States and shortly thereafter married an American citizen. Her husband petitioned for preference for her as an “immediate relative,” because she was the spouse of a citizen. 8 U.S.C. § 1154 (a)(1); 8 U.S.C. § 1151 (b). Unfortunately, he died before the petition was adjudicated.

We review the BIA decision construing the law de novo, albeit with deference to the agency’s interpretation of a statute it is charged with administering. Ayala-Chavez v. INS, 944 F.2d 638, 641 (9th Cir.1991); Salehpour v. INS, 761 F.2d 1442, 1445 (9th Cir.1985). The BIA construed 8 C.F.R. §§ 103.1 (n) and 245.2(a)(5) to preclude the immigration judge and the BIA from granting relief on such an unadjudicated petition. We agree.

The petition for “immediate…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.