Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

defendantstatutecitizenshipnaturalization
defendantstatutecitizenshipnaturalization

Related Cases

Alocozy v. United States Citizenship & Immigration Servs.
View Case »
Ghaelian v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
View Case »
Mansur v. Albright
View Case »
Romero-Cruz; U.S. v.
View Case »
Rojas-Pedroza; U.S. v.
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Gildernew v. Quarantillo

Facts

The applicant was a native and citizen of Ireland. He applied for naturalization and appeared for a naturalization exam. In September 2004, while his application was pending, the applicant went to Ireland. He claimed that he tried to return in April 2005 but was told that he was on the 'no-fly' list and could not enter the United States. He was ultimately permitted to return to the United States in November 2005. His naturalization application was subsequently denied pursuant to 8 U.S.C.S. 1427(b) because he had been outside the country for more than one year.

The applicant was a native and citizen of Ireland. He applied for naturalization and appeared for a naturalization exam. In September 2004, while his application was pending, the applicant went to Ireland. He claimed that he tried to return in April 2005 but was told that he was on the 'no-fly' list and could not enter the United States. He was ultimately permitted to return to the United States in November 2005. His naturalization application was subsequently denied pursuant to 8 U.S.C.S. 1427(b) because he had been outside the country for more than one year.

Issue

Whether the one-year absence bar in 8 U.S.C. 1427(b) applies to the entire period for which continuous residence is required for naturalization.

Whether the one-year absence bar in 1427(b) applies only to the period preceding the naturalization interview, and does not extend to the period following the interview.

Rule

8 U.S.C. 1427(b) states that 'absence from the United States for a continuous period of one year or more during the period for which continuous residence is required for admission to citizenship… shall break the continuity of such residence.'

8 U.S.C. 1427(b) provides that 'absence from the United States for a continuous period of one year or more during the period for which continuous residence is required for admission to citizenship (whether preceding or subsequent to the filing of the application for naturalization) shall break the continuity of such residence.'

Analysis

The court found that the one-year absence bar in 1427(b) applies to the entire period for which continuous residence is required, 'whether preceding or subsequent to the filing of the application for naturalization.' The applicant's argument that the absence bar only applied to the period preceding the naturalization interview was rejected as it was contrary to the language of the statute.

The court found that the one-year absence bar in 1427(b) applies to the entire period for which continuous residence is required, 'whether preceding or subsequent to the filing of the application for naturalization.' The applicant's argument that the absence bar only applied to the period preceding the naturalization interview was rejected as it was contrary to the language of the statute.

Conclusion

The court affirmed the district court's judgment, concluding that the applicant's absence from the United States for over one year disqualified him from naturalized citizenship under 8 U.S.C. 1427.

The court affirmed the district court's judgment, concluding that the applicant's absence from the United States for over one year disqualified him from naturalized citizenship under 8 U.S.C. 1427.

Who won?

Defendants prevailed in the case because the court upheld the denial of the applicant's naturalization application based on the statutory requirement of continuous residence.

Defendants prevailed in the case because the court upheld the denial of the applicant's naturalization application based on the statutory requirement of continuous residence.

You must be