13-605 Nguyen v.

Holder

UNITEDSTATESCOURTOFAPPEALS FORTHESECONDCIRCUIT _______________ AugustTerm,2013 (Submitted:January16,2014Decided:February19,2014) DocketNo.13605ag

_______________

HUYENV.NGUYEN, Petitioner, v. ERICH.HOLDER,JR., UnitedStatesAttorneyGeneral, Respondent. Before: KATZMANN,ChiefJudge,WESLEYandCHIN,CircuitJudges. _______________ _______________

PetitionforreviewofadecisionoftheBoardofImmigrationAppeals, whichaffirmedanimmigrationjudgesorderofremovalanddenialofapetition toremovetheconditionsonthepetitionersresidency.Weconcludethatalthough thedeterminationthatthepetitionerandherhusbandwererelatedasnieceand

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.,forRespondent. _______________ 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). NguyenwasadmittedasaconditionalpermanentresidentonAugust22,

2000,basedonhermarriagetoUnitedStatescitizenVuTruong(Truong).On July10,2002,Nguyenjointlyfiledapetitionwithherhusbandtoremovethe
2

conditionsonherresidency.OnDecember12,2007,theUnitedStatesCustoms andImmigrationServicedeniedthepetitionafterfindingthatNguyenwas Truongshalfniece.TheagencyconcludedthatNguyensmarriagetohercitizen husbandwasincestuousandthereforevoid.Consequently,Nguyenwascharged asremovablefromtheUnitedStatesonvariousgrounds,eachofwhichwas relatedtothedeterminationthathermarriagewasvoidandherconditional residencyintheUnitedStateswasimproper.Nguyendeniedthechargesand proceededtoahearingbeforetheIJregardingherremovability. Followingahearing,theIJconcludedthatthegovernmentsevidence

showingthatNguyenwasthehalfnieceofherhusbandwascredible.TheIJ furtherheldthataNewYorkstatutevoidingasincestuousamarriagebetween 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

3

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

4

tetheredtotheevidentiaryrecord,Siewev.Gonzalez,480F.3d160,169(2dCir. 2007),wewilldefertoitsfindingevenifthereissupportforacontrary inference,id. WhileNguyencontendsthattestimonydisputingtherelationshipbetween

NguyensmotherandNguyenshusbandwasmorecrediblethantheevidenceon whichtheagencyrelied,weaffordparticulardeferencetotheagencys credibilitydeterminationswheretheyarebasedonanalysisoftestimony. Zhong,480F.3dat11617.Havingreviewedtheadministrativerecord,wearenot compelledtoconcludethattheIJerredindeemingNguyenandherhusbands testimonylesscrediblethantheevidenceonwhichitreliedinfindingthetwo relatedashalfbloodednieceanduncle.Accordingly,weaffirmtheIJsfactual determinationthatNguyenandherhusbandarerelatedashalfbloodedniece anduncle. Butthatisnottheendofthematter.Wemustalsoreviewdenovothe

agencysapplicationofNewYorklawtothefactthatthepetitionerandher husbandarerelatedasnieceanduncleof...thehalfblood,toborrowaphrase usedbyNewYorksDomesticRelationsLaw.SeeN.Y.Dom.Rel.Law5(2).

TheBIAconcludedthat,asamatterofNewYorkstatutorylaw,marriages betweenhalfbloodedniecesandunclesare,likethefullbloodedequivalent relationshipbetweennieceanduncle,voidasincestuous. IntheirbriefingbeforethisCourt,thepartiesdonotdisputethatNewYork

lawappliestothequestionofwhetherNguyensmarriageisvoidforincest. However,theypartwaysontheproperinterpretationtobegiventoNewYorks statutedefiningandproscribingincestuousmarriages.Theapplicablestatuteis section5ofNewYorksDomesticRelationsLaw,whichprovides,inpertinent part,asfollows: Amarriageisincestuousandvoidwhethertherelativesare legitimateorillegitimatebetweeneither: 1.Anancestorandadescendant; 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

6

wholeorthehalfblood.Ourresolutionofthisquestionwillbedispositiveofthe petitionbeforeus:anaffirmativeanswerthatis,thatthestatutealsoreaches marriagesbetweenniecesandunclesofthehalfbloodwouldrequiredenialof thepetition,whileanegativeanswerwould,attheleast,begroundsfor terminationoftheremovalproceeding. WenotethattwocasesfromNewYorksintermediateappellatecourtshold

thatmarriagesbetweenhalfniecesandhalfunclesarevoidforincest 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 unclewereforbiddentointermarryundersection5ofNewYorksDomestic RelationsLaw,117N.Y.S.2dat346.
7

Thepartieshavenotidentified,norhavewediscovered,anyreported

decisionoftheNewYorkCourtofAppealsthatsquarelyholdsthatsection5(3)of NewYorksDomesticRelationsLawprohibitsmarriagesbetweenhalfblooded niecesanduncles.AlthoughtheBIAcitedtheNewYorkCourtofAppealss decisioninInreMaysEstatefortheholdingthatamarriagebetweenahalfuncle andhisnieceisincestuousandvoid,Admin.Rec.at4,wefindnoclear affirmanceoftheAudleyruleinthatcase.Bycontrast,theonecasefromtheCourt ofAppealstoaddressthequestionofstatutoryinterpretationbeforeusisInre SimmsEstate,26N.Y.2d163(1970),whichcallsintoquestiontheglossgivento NewYorksinceststatuteinAudley.Id.at166. InSimms,theCourtofAppealsdidnotdecidethequestionofstatutory

interpretationthatisbeforeushere,seeid.at167,butitneverthelesscastdoubt upontheanalysisgivenbytheAppellateDivisioninAudley.TheSimmsopinion observedthattheomissionofthephrasewholeorhalfbloodfromthe applicablestatutorylanguagewastroublesomegiventheinclusionofthat languageinthestatutesimmediatelyprecedinginterdictionofmarriages betweenbrothersandsisters,andfurthernotedthatitseemsreasonabletothink thatiftheLegislatureintendedtoprohibitmarriagesbetweenuncles,nieces,

8

auntsandnephewswhoseparentswererelatedtothecontractingpartyonlyby thehalfblood,itwouldhaveusedsimilarlanguage.Id.at166.TheCourtof Appealsfurtheropinedthat [i]ftheLegislaturehadintendedthatitsinterdictiononthistypeof marriageshouldextenddowntotherathermoreremoterelationship ofhalfbloodbetweenuncleandniece,itcouldhavemadesuitable provision.Itsfailuretodosointhelightofitsexplicitlanguage relatingtobrothersandsisterssuggestsitmaynothaveintendedto carrytheinterdictionthisfar. Id.WhiletheCourtofAppealssanalysisinSimmscanfairlybecalleddicta,it nonethelessgivesuspauseinconsideringthecontinuedvitalityofAudleys interpretationofsubsection(3). Inthesecircumstances,wearefacedwithanoutcomedeterminative

questioninacaseinwhichtheNewYorkCourtofAppealshasnotsquarely addressedanissueandotherdecisionsbyNewYorkcourtsareinsufficientto predicthowtheCourtofAppealswouldresolveit.PenguinGrp.(USA)Inc.v. Am.Buddha,609F.3d30,42(2dCir.2010).Onthebriefingbeforeus,weare unabletoconcludethateithertheplainlanguageofthestatuteoritslegislative historyreadilyfurnishesananswer,seeid.,andarethereforenotconfidentthat wecancorrectlyresolvethematteratissueourselves,Licciexrel.Licciv.Lebanese

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.3d213,224(2dCir.2013);10EllicottSquareCourtCorp.v.MountainValley Indem.Co.,634F.3d112,12526(2dCir.2011).Inlightofourforegoingdiscussion, weconcludethatthequestionbeforeussatisfiesthefirsttwoconsiderations.We thereforeturntothelastconsideration:theimportanceofthequestiontothestate. Wearemindfulthatinexercisingourdiscretiontocertifyaquestiontothe

CourtofAppealswemustassurethatthequestiononwhichwecertify[is]of importancetothestate,anditsresolutionmustrequirevaluejudgmentsand

10

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 unclemarriagesinpartbecausetheyconcludedthatsuchmarriageswould certainlyshockthesentimentofanyenlightenedcommunity,Campbellv. Crampton,2F.417,428(C.C.N.D.N.Y.1880),andthatanequivalencebetween wholeandhalfbloodrelationshipswasamatterofpublicpolicy,Audley,187 N.Y.S.at654.SeealsoAudley,187N.Y.S.at654(describingtheprohibitionof incest,includingmarriagesbetweenniecesandunclesofanypercentageof

11

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).Wethereforeconcludethatthefinalfactorcounselsin favorofcertification. Fortheforegoingreasons,andpursuanttoNewYorkCourtofAppeals

Rule500.27andLocalRule27.2ofthisCourt,wecertifythefollowingquestionto theNewYorkCourtofAppeals: Doessection5(3)ofNewYorksDomesticRelationsLawvoidas incestuousamarriagebetweenanuncleandnieceofthehalf blood(thatis,wherethehusbandisthehalfbrotherofthewifes mother)?

12

 Consistentwithourusualpractice,wedonotintendtolimitthescopeofthe CourtofAppealsanalysisthroughtheformulationofourquestion,andweinvite theCourtofAppealstoexpanduponoralterthisquestionasitshoulddeem appropriate.10EllicottSquare,634F.3dat126. ItisherebyORDEREDthattheClerkofthisCourttransmittotheClerkof

theNewYorkCourtofAppealsthisopinionasourcertificate,togetherwitha completesetofthebriefsandtheadministrativerecordfiledinthisCourt.The partieswillequallybearanyfeesandcoststhatmaybeimposedbytheNewYork CourtofAppealsinconnectionwiththiscertification.Thispanelwillresumeits considerationofthispetitionaftertheNewYorkCourtofAppealsdisposesof thiscertificationeitherbyprovidingguidanceordecliningcertification.

13