that Minasyan’s parents separated, as a matter of law, in October 1993. It clarifies that the separation constituted a legal separation under California law. It. does not, however, change in any way the parties’ prior status. In their arguments, the parties both emphasize the nunc pro tunc order. However, we need not consider whether to give any effect to that order because the judgment entered during the divorce proceedings resolves the legal question definitively. 19 .We note that at least one circuit has concluded that a separation must be formally or judicially recognized for it to constitute a legal separation within the meaning of the INA. As the Second Circuit reasoned, "[a] contrary interpretation would render superfluous the provision's specification that the ir.1978) (<HOLDING>). As the court explained in Fierro, "Congress
holding that admission of one defendants deposition was proper where she was present at the deposition even though she was represented at the time by the same counsel as her codefendants holding that the bia correctly imputed a parents knowledge that she and her children were not eligible for entry to the united states to her children holding that a plaintiff could not show that she engaged in protected activity because she did not present evidence that she informed her employer that her complaints were based on race or age discrimination holding that the plaintiff made out a prima facie case of age discrimination based upon a showing that she was a member of the protected group she was qualified and capable of doing her job she was discharged and that her manager called her old woman thus evincing agebased animus sufficient to demonstrate discriminatory intent holding that a woman admitted to the united states based on her representation that she was unmarried could not retroactively cure the fact that she was married at the time of entry by obtaining a subsequent annulment