CA9, En Banc (6-5) on CSPA: De Osorio v. Mayorkas (Rejecting Matter of Wang)

Majority: "The United States Citizen and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) denied Appellants’ requests for priority date retention under the CSPA. USCIS relied on the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision in Matter of Wang, 25 I. & N. Dec. 28 (BIA 2009) that the CSPA does not apply to all derivative beneficiaries.  The district court, deferring to the BIA’s interpretation, granted summary judgment to USCIS in two separate cases.  We reverse.  We conclude that the plain language of the CSPA unambiguously grants automatic conversion and priority date retention to aged-out derivative beneficiaries.  The BIA’s interpretation of the statute conflicts with the plain language of the CSPA, and it is not entitled to deference."

Dissent: "I would hold that § 1153(h)(3) is ambiguous about whether aged-out F3 and F4 derivative beneficiaries are within its ambit, and that the BIA’s conclusion that they are not is reasonable.  I believe that the BIA’s construction of this provision is entitled to deference.  See Mayo Found., 131 S. Ct. at 712; Brand X, 545 U.S. at 980.  Accordingly, I would affirm the district court."

- De Osorio v. Mayorkas, Sept. 26, 2012.

[Hats off to Nancy Ellen Miller (argued), Reeves & Associates, APLC, Pasadena, California; Amy Prokop and Carl Shusterman (argued), Law Offices of Carl M. Shusterman, Los Angeles, California, for plaintiff-appellant Rosalina Cuellar de Osorio; Amy Prokop and Carl Shusterman, Law Offices of Carl M. Shusterman, Los Angeles, California, for plaintiffs-appellants Elizabeth Magpantay, Evelyn Y. Santos, Maria Eloisa Liwag, Norma Uy, and Ruth Uy; Anthony James Favero and Robert L. Reeves, Reeves & Associates, APLC, Pasadena, California for plaintiffs/appellants Teresita G. Costelo and Lorenzo P. Ong; Mary Kenney, American Immigration Council, Washington, D.C., for amici curiae American Immigration Council and American Immigration Lawyers Association; Nickolas A. Kacprowski, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, San Francisco, California, for amici curiae American Immigration Council and National Immigrant Justice Center; Deborah Susan Smith, Law Office of Deborah S. Smith, Helena, Montana, for amici curiae American Immigration Lawyers Association and Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc.; and Thomas Kirk Ragland, Benach Ragland LLP, Washington, D.C., for amicus curiae Active Dreams LLC.!]