Nguyen v. Holder
21 N.E.3d 1023, 24 N.Y.3d 1017 (2014)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under New York's Domestic Relations Law § 5(3), a marriage between a half-uncle and a half-niece is not void as incestuous because the statute, while explicitly prohibiting sibling marriages of the half-blood, does not contain similar language for uncle-niece relationships.
Facts:
- Petitioner's mother was born to Nguyen Thi Ba in 1950.
- Twenty-five years later, Nguyen Thi Ba gave birth to a son, Vu Truong, with a different father.
- This biological relationship made Vu Truong the half-brother of the petitioner's mother.
- Consequently, the petitioner is the biological half-niece of Vu Truong.
- In January 2000, the petitioner, a 19-year-old citizen of Vietnam, married Vu Truong, a 24-year-old naturalized American citizen, in Rochester, New York.
- Following the marriage, the petitioner was granted conditional permanent resident status in the United States.
Procedural Posture:
- An immigration judge ordered the petitioner removed from the United States on the ground that her marriage was void.
- The United States Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed the immigration judge's decision.
- The petitioner sought review of the Board's ruling in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
- Finding the case turned on an unsettled question of New York law, the Second Circuit certified the question of the marriage's validity to the New York Court of Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does section 5(3) of New York’s Domestic Relations Law void as incestuous a marriage where the husband is the half-brother of the wife’s mother (i.e., a marriage between a half-uncle and half-niece)?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
No. A marriage where a husband is the half brother of the wife’s mother is not void as incestuous under Domestic Relations Law § 5 (3).
Concurring - Smith, J.
No, the marriage is not void. The statutory language is ambiguous because it specifies 'whole or the half blood' for sibling marriages in subdivision (2) but omits this language for uncle-niece marriages in subdivision (3). Given this ambiguity and the fact that the statute imposes criminal penalties, the rule of lenity dictates a narrower interpretation that excludes half-blood relationships from the prohibition. Furthermore, the purposes of incest laws are not strongly implicated; uncle-niece marriage lacks the universal social condemnation of closer relationships, was historically permitted in New York, and the genetic risk is comparable to that of first-cousin marriages, which are legal.
Concurring - Graffeo, J.
No, the marriage is not void. The plain language of the statute compels this conclusion through the principle of statutory construction that an intentional omission by the legislature is meaningful. The legislature's inclusion of 'half blood' in the provision for siblings and its exclusion from the provision for uncles and nieces creates an 'irrefutable inference' that the prohibition was not intended to extend to half-blood uncle-niece relationships. However, the legislature should consider revisiting the statute to clarify its policy on such marriages, as the court was not presented with scientific evidence on genetic risks and other public policy concerns might exist.
Analysis:
This decision resolves a long-standing ambiguity in New York's incest laws by clarifying that the prohibition on uncle-niece marriages applies only to relatives of the whole blood. The holding serves as a key example of statutory interpretation, employing the canon of 'expressio unius est exclusio alterius' and the rule of lenity for statutes with penal consequences. By narrowing the scope of the incest prohibition, the case effectively places the burden on the legislature to explicitly outlaw half-blood uncle-niece marriages if it wishes to do so in the future.
