CoA Nguyen v. Holder Docket

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


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


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


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


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).


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


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

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,


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


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


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


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)?


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.

Documents

CoA Nguyen v. Holder Docket