Term: 2013
Docket: 12-930
Scialabba v. Cuellar De Osorio
- Pro
12-930 SCIALABBA V. DE OSORIO DECISION BELOW: 695 F.3d 1003 CERT. GRANTED 6/24/2013 QUESTION PRESENTED: The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) permits United States citizens and lawful permanent resident aliens to petition for certain family members to obtain visas to immigrate to the United States or to adjust their status in the United States to that of a lawful permanent resident alien. The family member sponsored by the petitioner is known as the primary beneficiary. The primary beneficiary's "spouse or child" may be a derivative beneficiary of the petition, "entitled to the same status[] and the same order of consideration" as the primary beneficiary. 8 U.S.C. 1153(d). Section 203(h)(3) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1153(h)(3), grants relief to certain persons who reach age 21 ("age out"), and therefore lose "child" status, after the filing of visa petitions as to which they are beneficiaries. The questions presented are: 1. Whether Section 1153(h)(3) 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. 2. Whether the Board of Immigration Appeals reasonably interpreted Section 1153(h) (3). LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 09-56786, 09-56846
The U.S. Supreme Court case Scialabba v. Cuellar de Osorio (2013) revolved around the interpretation of the Child Status Protection Act (CSPA), which allows children who turn 21 while waiting for visas to retain their child status and remain eligible for immigration benefits. The plaintiffs, led by Rosalina Cuellar de Osorio, argued that this protection should apply to all aged-out derivative beneficiaries of visa applications, not just principal beneficiaries as interpreted by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). However, in a complex ruling with multiple opinions written by different justices, the court sided with BIA's narrower interpretation in a 5-4 decision. The majority opinion held that CSPA did not automatically convert an aged-out child’s petition into an appropriate category; instead it required a lawful permanent resident parent to submit another application on behalf of their now-adult child.
In the dissenting opinion for Scialabba v. Cuellar de Osorio, Justice Sotomayor argued that the majority's interpretation of the Child Status Protection Act (CSPA) was inconsistent with its purpose and text. She contended that Congress intended to alleviate family separation caused by lengthy immigration delays when it passed CSPA in 2002. The law allows children who turn 21 during their parents' immigration process to retain their child status and not lose their place in line. However, according to Sotomayor, the majority's decision only applies this protection to a narrow group of immigrants—those whose petitions are filed directly by citizen relatives—and excludes those sponsored by lawful permanent resident family members or employers. This exclusion contradicts Congressional intent as well as statutory language which does not differentiate between different types of sponsors but refers broadly to all 'aged-out' beneficiaries.
