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

deportationpiracy
deportationpiracy

Related Cases

Sidhu v. Ashcroft
View Case »
Discipio v. Ashcroft
View Case »
Khilan v. Holder
View Case »
Mourillon, Matter of
View Case »
Thomas v. Ashcroft
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Kolster v. Ashcroft

Facts

Kolster lawfully entered the United States from Venezuela in 1980 to attend high school and remained through college, graduating in 1988. He became a lawful permanent resident on August 24, 1989, and lived continuously in the U.S. since re-entering on September 11, 1988. In 1992, he pled guilty to conspiracy to possess cocaine with intent to distribute, which led to his deportation proceedings. The INS denied his request for 212(c) relief, stating he had not been a permanent resident for seven consecutive years, despite his argument that his prior lawful presence in the U.S. should be considered.

Kolster lawfully entered the United States from Venezuela in 1980 to attend high school and remained through college, graduating in 1988. He became a lawful permanent resident on August 24, 1989, and lived continuously in the U.S. since re-entering on September 11, 1988. In 1992, he pled guilty to conspiracy to possess cocaine with intent to distribute, which led to his deportation proceedings. The INS denied his request for 212(c) relief, stating he had not been a permanent resident for seven consecutive years, despite his argument that his prior lawful presence in the U.S. should be considered.

Issue

Whether the requirement of seven years of lawful unrelinquished domicile under 212(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act necessitates seven years of legal permanent residency.

Whether the requirement of seven years of lawful unrelinquished domicile under 212(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act necessitates seven years of legal permanent residency.

Rule

The court held that the requirement of seven years of lawful unrelinquished domicile does not require seven years of legal permanent residency, and that relief is available to an alien who meets the requirements of being lawfully admitted for permanent residence and having accrued a lawful unrelinquished domicile of seven consecutive years.

The court held that the requirement of seven years of lawful unrelinquished domicile does not require seven years of legal permanent residency, and that relief is available to an alien who meets the requirements of being lawfully admitted for permanent residence and having accrued a lawful unrelinquished domicile of seven consecutive years.

Analysis

The court analyzed the statutory language of 212(c) and concluded that it clearly distinguishes between 'lawfully admitted for permanent residence' and 'lawful unrelinquished domicile.' The court noted that if Congress intended to require seven years of permanent residency, it would have explicitly stated so. The court found that Kolster had been lawfully domiciled in the U.S. for seven consecutive years, thus qualifying him for consideration for relief from deportation under 212(c).

The court analyzed the statutory language of 212(c) and concluded that it clearly distinguishes between 'lawfully admitted for permanent residence' and 'lawful unrelinquished domicile.' The court noted that if Congress intended to require seven years of permanent residency, it would have explicitly stated so. The court found that Kolster had been lawfully domiciled in the U.S. for seven consecutive years, thus qualifying him for consideration for relief from deportation under 212(c).

Conclusion

Kolster was improperly denied an opportunity to seek relief from deportation, and this matter is hereby remanded to the INS for evaluation of Kolster's request for 212(c) relief.

Kolster was improperly denied an opportunity to seek relief from deportation, and this matter is hereby remanded to the INS for evaluation of Kolster's request for 212(c) relief.

Who won?

Kolster prevailed in the case because the court found that he met the requirements for consideration under 212(c) and that the INS had erred in its determination.

Kolster prevailed in the case because the court found that he met the requirements for consideration under 212(c) and that the INS had erred in its determination.

You must be