coa nguyen v. holder docket
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/13/2019 CoA Nguyen v. Holder Docket
1/13
13-605Nguyen v. Holder
UNITEDSTATESCOURTOFAPPEALS
FORTHESECONDCIRCUIT
_______________
AugustTerm,2013
(Submitted:January16,2014 Decided:February19,2014)
DocketNo.13605ag
_______________
HUYENV.NGUYEN,
Petitioner,
v.
ERICH.HOLDER,JR.,
UnitedStates
Attorney
General,
Respondent.
_______________
Before:
KATZMANN,ChiefJudge,WESLEYandCHIN,CircuitJudges.
_______________
PetitionforreviewofadecisionoftheBoardofImmigrationAppeals,
whichaffirmedanimmigrationjudgesorderofremovalanddenialofapetition
toremovetheconditionsonthepetitionersresidency.Weconcludethatalthough
thedeterminationthatthepetitionerandherhusbandwererelatedasnieceand
-
8/13/2019 CoA Nguyen v. Holder Docket
2/13
2
husbandbyhalfbloodissupportedbysubstantialevidence,thequestionof
whethersuchrelationshipsarevoidforincestunderNewYorksDomestic
RelationsLawwarrantscertificationtotheNewYorkCourtofAppeals.
DECISION RESERVED AND QUESTION CERTIFIED.
_______________
MichaelE.Marszalkowski,Buffalo,NY,forPetitioner.MichaelC.Heyse,TrialAttorney,StuartF.Delery,Assistant
AttorneyGeneral,andMaryJaneCandaux,AssistantDirector,
CivilDivision,UnitedStatesDepartmentofJustice,
Washington,
D.C.,
for
Respondent.
_______________
KATZMANN,ChiefJudge:
PetitionerHuyenV.Nguyen(Nguyen),acitizenofVietnam,seeks
reviewofanorderoftheBoardofImmigrationAppeals(BIA)dismissingher
appealfromadecisionoftheImmigrationJudge(IJ),whichorderedher
removedanddeniedherpetitiontoremoveconditionsplaceduponherresidency
intheUnitedStates.SeeInreHuyenV.Nguyen,No.A076127741(B.I.A.Jan.25,
2013),affgNo.A076127741(Immig.Ct.Buffalo,NYAug.31,2010).
Nguyenwas
admitted
as
aconditional
permanent
resident
on
August
22,
2000,basedonhermarriagetoUnitedStatescitizenVuTruong(Truong).On
July10,2002,Nguyenjointlyfiledapetitionwithherhusbandtoremovethe
-
8/13/2019 CoA Nguyen v. Holder Docket
3/13
3
conditionsonherresidency.OnDecember12,2007,theUnitedStatesCustoms
andImmigrationServicedeniedthepetitionafterfindingthatNguyenwas
Truongshalfniece.TheagencyconcludedthatNguyensmarriagetohercitizen
husbandwasincestuousandthereforevoid.Consequently,Nguyenwascharged
asremovablefromtheUnitedStatesonvariousgrounds,eachofwhichwas
relatedtothedeterminationthathermarriagewasvoidandherconditional
residencyintheUnitedStateswasimproper.Nguyendeniedthechargesand
proceededtoahearingbeforetheIJregardingherremovability.
Followingahearing,theIJconcludedthatthegovernmentsevidence
showingthatNguyenwasthehalfnieceofherhusbandwascredible.TheIJfurther
held
that
aNew
York
statute
voiding
as
incestuous
amarriage
between
anuncleandaniecealsoreachesanymarriageinwhichaparentoftheniece
isahalfsiblingoftheuncle.Admin.Rec.at66(citingAudleyv.Audley,187
N.Y.S.652(N.Y.App.Div.1921)(internalquotationmarksomitted)).Nguyen
appealedtotheBIA.TheBIAaffirmedtheIJsfindingthatrecordevidence,which
includedbothabirthcertificateandTruongssistersimmigrationdocuments
indicatingthatNguyensgrandmotherwasalsoTruongsmother,wassufficient
toshowthatNguyenandTruongwererelatedashalfnieceandhalfuncle.The
-
8/13/2019 CoA Nguyen v. Holder Docket
4/13
4
BIAalsoaffirmedtheIJsconclusionthatamarriagebetweenanieceandahalf
uncleisinvalidunderNewYorklaw.AdminRec.at4(citingInreMaysEstate,
305N.Y.486(1953)).
WehavereviewedboththeIJsandtheBIAsopinionsforthesakeof
completeness,Zamanv.Mukasey,514F.3d233,237(2dCir.2008)(internal
quotationmarksomitted),reviewingthefactualfindingsforsubstantial
evidenceandquestionsoflawdenovo.See8U.S.C.1252(b)(4).Afactualfinding
willbebasedonsubstantialevidencewhereitissupportedbyreasonable,
substantialandprobativeevidenceintherecord.YanqinWengv.Holder,562F.3d
510,513(2dCir.2009)(quotingLinZhongv.U.S.DeptofJustice,480F.3d104,116
(2dCir.
2007)).
Applyingthosestandardshere,weconcludethattheagencysfactual
findingthatNguyensmaternalgrandmother,NguyenThiBa,isalsothemother
ofthepetitionershusband,Truong(andthusthatNguyenandherhusbandare
halfbloodednieceanduncle)issupportedbysubstantialevidence.Theagencys
determinationwasreasonablybasedonareviewofNguyensmothersbirth
certificate,aswellasadocumentintheimmigrationfileofTruongssister,which
listedNguyensmotherasherhalfsister.Where,ashere,theagencysinferenceis
-
8/13/2019 CoA Nguyen v. Holder Docket
5/13
5
tetheredtotheevidentiaryrecord,Siewev.Gonzalez,480F.3d160,169(2dCir.
2007),wewilldefertoitsfindingevenifthereissupportforacontrary
inference,id.
WhileNguyencontendsthattestimonydisputingtherelationshipbetween
NguyensmotherandNguyenshusbandwasmorecrediblethantheevidenceon
whichtheagencyrelied,weaffordparticulardeferencetotheagencys
credibilitydeterminationswheretheyarebasedonanalysisoftestimony.
Zhong,480F.3dat11617.Havingreviewedtheadministrativerecord,wearenot
compelledtoconcludethattheIJerredindeemingNguyenandherhusbands
testimonylesscrediblethantheevidenceonwhichitreliedinfindingthetwo
relatedas
half
blooded
niece
and
uncle.
Accordingly,
we
affirm
the
IJs
factual
determinationthatNguyenandherhusbandarerelatedashalfbloodedniece
anduncle.
Butthatisnottheendofthematter.Wemustalsoreviewdenovothe
agencysapplicationofNewYorklawtothefactthatthepetitionerandher
husbandarerelatedasnieceanduncleof...thehalfblood,toborrowaphrase
usedbyNewYorksDomesticRelationsLaw.SeeN.Y.Dom.Rel.Law5(2).
-
8/13/2019 CoA Nguyen v. Holder Docket
6/13
6
TheBIAconcludedthat,asamatterofNewYorkstatutorylaw,marriages
betweenhalfbloodedniecesandunclesare,likethefullbloodedequivalent
relationshipbetweennieceanduncle,voidasincestuous.
IntheirbriefingbeforethisCourt,thepartiesdonotdisputethatNewYork
lawappliestothequestionofwhetherNguyensmarriageisvoidforincest.
However,theypartwaysontheproperinterpretationtobegiventoNewYorks
statutedefiningandproscribingincestuousmarriages.Theapplicablestatuteis
section5ofNewYorksDomesticRelationsLaw,whichprovides,inpertinent
part,asfollows:
Amarriageisincestuousandvoidwhethertherelativesare
legitimateorillegitimatebetweeneither:
1.An
ancestor
and
adescendant;
2.Abrotherandsisterofeitherthewholeorthehalfblood;
3.Anuncleandnieceoranauntandnephew.
N.Y.Dom.Rel.Law5.
Curiously,subsection(2),whichregulatesmarriagesbetweenbrothersand
sisters,expresslyappliestohalfbloodrelationships,whereassubsection(3),
whichistheprovisionappliedtothepetitionerandherhusband,omitsthe
relevantlanguage.Thequestionpresented,therefore,iswhethersubsection(3)
shouldberead,likesubsection(2),toalsoreachanuncleandnieceofeitherthe
-
8/13/2019 CoA Nguyen v. Holder Docket
7/13
7
wholeorthehalfblood.Ourresolutionofthisquestionwillbedispositiveofthe
petitionbeforeus:anaffirmativeanswerthatis,thatthestatutealsoreaches
marriagesbetweenniecesandunclesofthehalfbloodwouldrequiredenialof
thepetition,whileanegativeanswerwould,attheleast,begroundsfor
terminationoftheremovalproceeding.
WenotethattwocasesfromNewYorksintermediateappellatecourtshold
thatmarriages
between
half
nieces
and
half
uncles
are
void
for
incest
notwithstandingtheomissionofthewholeorthehalfbloodlanguagefrom
subsection(3)ofthestatute.ThemostinfluentialamongthemisAudleyv.Audley,
187N.Y.S.652(N.Y.App.Div.1921),inwhichtheAppellateDivisionfirstheld
thatsubsection(3)reachesrelationshipsbetweenanuncleandanieceoranaunt
andnephewwithoutregardtothepercentageoftheirbloodrelationship,id.at
654.Thesecondcase,alsofromtheAppellateDivision,isInreMaysEstate,117
N.Y.S.2d345(N.Y.App.Div.1952),affd,305N.Y.486(1953),whichcited,without
furtheranalysis,therulesetoutinAudleyandheldthatahalfnieceandhalf
unclewere
forbidden
to
intermarry
under
section
5of
New
Yorks
Domestic
RelationsLaw,117N.Y.S.2dat346.
-
8/13/2019 CoA Nguyen v. Holder Docket
8/13
8
Thepartieshavenotidentified,norhavewediscovered,anyreported
decisionoftheNewYorkCourtofAppealsthatsquarelyholdsthatsection5(3)of
NewYorksDomesticRelationsLawprohibitsmarriagesbetweenhalfblooded
niecesanduncles.AlthoughtheBIAcitedtheNewYorkCourtofAppealss
decisioninInreMaysEstatefortheholdingthatamarriagebetweenahalfuncle
andhisnieceisincestuousandvoid,Admin.Rec.at4,wefindnoclear
affirmanceof
the
Audley
rule
in
that
case.
By
contrast,
the
one
case
from
the
Court
ofAppealstoaddressthequestionofstatutoryinterpretationbeforeusisInre
SimmsEstate,26N.Y.2d163(1970),whichcallsintoquestiontheglossgivento
NewYorksinceststatuteinAudley.Id.at166.
InSimms,theCourtofAppealsdidnotdecidethequestionofstatutory
interpretationthatisbeforeushere,seeid.at167,butitneverthelesscastdoubt
upontheanalysisgivenbytheAppellateDivisioninAudley.TheSimmsopinion
observedthattheomissionofthephrasewholeorhalfbloodfromthe
applicablestatutorylanguagewastroublesomegiventheinclusionofthat
languagein
the
statutes
immediately
preceding
interdiction
of
marriages
betweenbrothersandsisters,andfurthernotedthatitseemsreasonabletothink
thatiftheLegislatureintendedtoprohibitmarriagesbetweenuncles,nieces,
-
8/13/2019 CoA Nguyen v. Holder Docket
9/13
9
auntsandnephewswhoseparentswererelatedtothecontractingpartyonlyby
thehalfblood,itwouldhaveusedsimilarlanguage.Id.at166.TheCourtof
Appealsfurtheropinedthat
[i]ftheLegislaturehadintendedthatitsinterdictiononthistypeof
marriageshouldextenddowntotherathermoreremoterelationship
ofhalfbloodbetweenuncleandniece,itcouldhavemadesuitable
provision.Itsfailuretodosointhelightofitsexplicitlanguage
relatingtobrothersandsisterssuggestsitmaynothaveintendedto
carrytheinterdictionthisfar.
Id.WhiletheCourtofAppealssanalysisinSimmscanfairlybecalleddicta,it
nonethelessgivesuspauseinconsideringthecontinuedvitalityofAudleys
interpretationofsubsection(3).
Inthesecircumstances,wearefacedwithanoutcomedeterminative
questionin
acase
in
which
the
New
York
Court
of
Appeals
has
not
squarely
addressedanissueandotherdecisionsbyNewYorkcourtsareinsufficientto
predicthowtheCourtofAppealswouldresolveit.PenguinGrp.(USA)Inc.v.
Am.Buddha,609F.3d30,42(2dCir.2010).Onthebriefingbeforeus,weare
unabletoconcludethateithertheplainlanguageofthestatuteoritslegislative
historyreadilyfurnishesananswer,seeid.,andarethereforenotconfidentthat
wecancorrectlyresolvethematteratissueourselves,Licciexrel.Licciv.Lebanese
-
8/13/2019 CoA Nguyen v. Holder Docket
10/13
10
CanadianBank,SAL,673F.3d50,74(2dCir.2012).Wethereforeconsiderwhether
tocertifythequestionofNewYorklawthatisbeforeustotheNewYorkCourtof
Appeals.
BeforeexercisingourdiscretiontocertifythequestionbeforeustotheNew
YorkCourtofAppeals,wemustsatisfyourselvesthatthequestionmeetsthe
followingcriteria:1)itmustbedeterminativeofthispetition;2)itmustnothave
beensquarelyaddressedbytheNewYorkCourtofAppealsandthedecisionsof
otherNewYorkcourtsmustleaveusunabletopredicthowtheCourtofAppeals
wouldrule;and3)thequestionmustbeimportanttothestateanditsresolution
mustrequirevalueladenjudgmentsorpublicpolicychoices.SeeInreThelenLLP,
736F.3d
213,
224
(2d
Cir.
2013);
10
Ellicott
Square
Court
Corp.
v.
Mountain
Valley
Indem.Co.,634F.3d112,12526(2dCir.2011).Inlightofourforegoingdiscussion,
weconcludethatthequestionbeforeussatisfiesthefirsttwoconsiderations.We
thereforeturntothelastconsideration:theimportanceofthequestiontothestate.
Wearemindfulthatinexercisingourdiscretiontocertifyaquestiontothe
CourtofAppealswemustassurethatthequestiononwhichwecertify[is]of
importancetothestate,anditsresolutionmustrequirevaluejudgmentsand
-
8/13/2019 CoA Nguyen v. Holder Docket
11/13
11
importantpublicpolicychoicesthattheNewYorkCourtofAppealsisbetter
situatedthanwetomake.Licci,673F.3dat74(internalquotationmarksand
alterationsomitted).Inconsideringtheimportanceofthequestionbeforeus,we
observethatathreadrunningthroughNewYorkscaselawregardingthe
degreesofconsanguinitywithinwhichamarriageisincestuousistherulethat
marriagesbetweenindividualswhoserelationshipismoreremotethanbrother
andsistermustbedeemedincestuousbyexpresslegislation.Seegenerally
Wightmanv.Wightman,4Johns.Ch.343(N.Y.Ch.1820).Followingthepassageof
NewYorksDomesticRelationsLaw,lowercourtsinthelatenineteenthandearly
twentiethcenturyreadhalfbloodintothelegislaturesproscriptionofniece
unclemarriages
in
part
because
they
concluded
that
such
marriages
would
certainlyshockthesentimentofanyenlightenedcommunity,Campbellv.
Crampton,2F.417,428(C.C.N.D.N.Y.1880),andthatanequivalencebetween
whole andhalfbloodrelationshipswasamatterofpublicpolicy,Audley,187
N.Y.S.at654.SeealsoAudley,187N.Y.S.at654(describingtheprohibitionof
incest,includingmarriagesbetweenniecesandunclesofanypercentageof
-
8/13/2019 CoA Nguyen v. Holder Docket
12/13
12
bloodrelationship,asbeingforthebenefitofthepublichealthandthe
perpetuationofthehumanrace).
Weexpressnoviewonwhetherpublicpolicy,eithernoworatthetimethe
statutewaspassed,directsthateitheranarrowerormoreexpansiveglossshould
begiventothedefinitionofincestuousnieceunclerelationships.Clearer
guidancefromtheCourtofAppealsis,however,inorder.SeeTireEngg&Distrib.
L.L.C.v.BankofChinaLtd.,Nos.131519cv,132535cv(L),132639cv(con),
F.3d,2014WL114285,at*56(2dCir.Jan.14,2014)(notingthatwherearule
reflectsajudiciallycreateddoctrinethatreflectspolicyconsiderationsovertime
onwhichcourts,thelegislature,andothersmayhavecometorely,certificationis
particularlycompelling).
We
therefore
conclude
that
the
final
factor
counsels
in
favorofcertification.
Fortheforegoingreasons,andpursuanttoNewYorkCourtofAppeals
Rule500.27andLocalRule27.2ofthisCourt,wecertifythefollowingquestionto
theNewYorkCourtofAppeals:
Doessection5(3)ofNewYorksDomesticRelationsLawvoidas
incestuousamarriagebetweenanuncleandnieceofthehalf
blood(thatis,wherethehusbandisthehalfbrotherofthewifes
mother)?
-
8/13/2019 CoA Nguyen v. Holder Docket
13/13
13
Consistentwithourusualpractice,wedonotintendtolimitthescopeofthe
Courtof
Appeals
analysis
through
the
formulation
of
our
question,
and
we
invite
theCourtofAppealstoexpanduponoralterthisquestionasitshoulddeem
appropriate.10EllicottSquare,634F.3dat126.
ItisherebyORDEREDthattheClerkofthisCourttransmittotheClerkof
the
New
York
Court
of
Appeals
this
opinion
as
our
certificate,
together
with
a
completesetofthebriefsandtheadministrativerecordfiledinthisCourt.The
partieswillequallybearanyfeesandcoststhatmaybeimposedbytheNewYork
CourtofAppealsinconnectionwiththiscertification.Thispanelwillresumeits
considerationofthispetitionaftertheNewYorkCourtofAppealsdisposesof
thiscertificationeitherbyprovidingguidanceordecliningcertification.