Children aging out of visas
Scialabba v. Rosalina Cuellar de Osorio
In brief
The Supreme Court backed the Board's reasonable reading of the immigration law and overturned the Ninth Circuit's ruling.
- Where it stands
- Decided
Decided 5-4 · June 9, 2014 · Opinion by Justice Kagan
- What it’s about
- Several immigrant families asked to keep their children’s original place in the visa line after the children turned 21 while waiting for visas.
- Who it affects
- The ruling supports the Board's denial of these families' requests to keep their children's original visa priority dates.
Summary: written with AI from the case record.
What it's about
The Supreme Court overturned the Ninth Circuit and sent the case back to the lower court (reversed and remanded), ruling that the Board of Immigration Appeals reasonably read the law and that its reading deserved deference.
The children qualified as children when the visa petitions were filed but turned 21 before the petitions were processed.
The case turned on how immigration law treats visa petitions when a child turns 21 before the petition is processed.
Question presented
1. Does the INA allow aliens who qualify as "children" at the time a visa application is filed but subsequently "age out" by turning twenty-one to retain their original application date? 2. Did the Board of Immigration Appeals reasonably interpret the INA when denying the respondents' request?
What the Court decided
Holding
The judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded. 695 F. 3d 1003, reversed and remanded. JUSTICE KAGAN, joined by JUSTICE KENNEDY and JUSTICE GINSBURG, concluded that the BIA’s textually reasonable construction of §1153(h)(3)’s ambiguous language was entitled to deference. Pp. 13– 33.
- Result
- Reversed
The Court's reasoning
Justice Kagan's opinion said the law's wording was unclear, but the Board's reading was reasonable based on the text and deserved deference (weight from the courts).
The vote
- Joined the judgment
- Concurred in a separate opinion
- Dissented
- Wrote an opinion
- Majority · 3joined the Court's opinion
- Kaganwrote the opinion
- Kennedy
- Ginsburg
- Concurring · 2agreed with the result, wrote separately
- Scalia
- Robertswrote separately
From the opinions
“If there is, the agency was obligated by the clear text of 8 U. S. C. §1153(h)(3) to convert the petitions and leave the children with their original priority dates.”
What's next
The case goes back to the Ninth Circuit for further proceedings under the Supreme Court's ruling.
Documents
Opinions
Docket activity
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Case Briefing
AI analysis generated: Decision Record
Case data updated: summary, question_presented, generation_metadata
Case data updated: question_presented, extraction_metadata
Show 1 moreShow fewer
Opinion added: Scialabba
More questions
- Which part of the law was at issue?
- The case turned on Section 1153(h)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
Sources
Primary materials plus reporting. Best-effort analysis: this explainer relies on a mix of primary materials and trusted secondary sources. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.