Mayorkas v. Cuellar de Osorio (12-930)

argument 12-930

Mayorkas v. Cuellar de Osorio

Supreme Court of the United States 1h 0m 5 speakers 8 chapters transcribed 4 days ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: chapters · speakers · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

What is the Court’s opening argument and the main issue in Mayorkas v. Cuellar de Osorio?

John G. Roberts 0:01

We'll hear argument now in case twelve nine thirty, Majorcas versus Cuera de Osorio.

Ms. Goldenberg 0:08

Mr Chief Justice, and may it please the court. The Board of Immigration Appeals reasonably interpreted Section eleven fifty three H three when it ruled that creation of a new petition by a new petitioner did not qualify as automatic conversion of an existing petition to an appropriate family sponsored category. That interpretation is supported by the text and by the structure of the statutory scheme. Indeed, it avoids destabilizing that scheme by displacing waiting aliens who have long had qualifying relationships with lawful permanent residents and putting ahead of them in line a large number of adults aged out former derivative beneficiaries who have only just obtained a relationship with someone who can sponsor a family member.

Unknown 0:50

But isn't there isn't the effect? Uh and then no longer a child. um much more severe. I mean everybody has to get bumped down a little way. It'll make difference in months until They they qualify for hearing.

Ms. Goldenberg 1:08

Your Honor, I don't accept the proposition that it would only make a difference of months, although I know respondents have argued that. It depends how many

Unknown 1:14

Well it's not gonna be twenty seven years.

Ms. Goldenberg 1:16

I'm sorry?

Unknown 1:17

It's not gonna be twenty years.

Ms. Goldenberg 1:19

No, Your Honor. It it won't be twenty years, but it could be years. And these people in the F two B line have already been waiting for years to get up to the front of that line.

Unknown 1:27

Well not all the time this Um once child has been waiting. It's no credit for that.

Ms. Goldenberg 1:35

I think it's mistaken to think of a derivative beneficiary as waiting in line and being entitled to credit for waiting in line for a couple of different reasons. First of all, the derivatives' rights are, as the name suggests, completely derivative of the principal beneficiary's rights. If the principal beneficiary never becomes a lawful permanent resident, never crosses the border into this country, then the derivative gets nothing for the time that the principal beneficiary spent waiting in line. In addition There are derivative beneficiaries who, under any understanding of what it means to wait in line, can't be conceived of as having waited for the time that the principal beneficiary has waited.

Ms. Goldenberg 2:11

And let me give you an example of that. Uh in the F four line, someone could be waiting in the F four line as a principal beneficiary for, say, fifteen years. And right as they're getting up to the five years,

Unknown 2:22

what's that for? I'm sorry, F for the first time. Deal with this as much as you do.

Ms. Goldenberg 2:26

I apologize, Your Honor. F four is siblings of U.S. citizens. So they could be waiting in the F four line for fifteen years, let's say, uh as a principal beneficiary, and then just as they've getting up to the front of that line and their priority date is going to become current, they get married to somebody. And the person they get married to has a seventeen year old child. at that point in time. That stepchild, that seventeen year old child under the definition of child in the statute will count as the principal beneficiary's child, and if, say, a year later, the principal beneficiary's priority date becomes current, And that principal beneficiary is entitled to immigrate to the United States and become a lawful permanent resident.

Ms. Goldenberg 3:04

they're going to be able to bring that seventeen year old or at that point eighteen year old stepchild along with them as a deriv derivative beneficiary. That stepchild did not wait in the line for the first fifteen years that the principal beneficiary was waiting. And so that example I think shows why when you look at a derivative beneficiary, you want to look at the end of the process, a snapshot in time of when the principal beneficiary is coming to this country and what the statute says is Principal beneficiary, if at the moment you're coming, do you have a child who would be left behind in another country if you were to come without them? If so, bring them along. But that doesn't make sense to look at the derivative beneficiary from the other thing.