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

statuteparoleimmigration lawliens
statuteparoleimmigration lawliens

Related Cases

Giri v. Keisler
View Case »
Martinez-De Ryan v. Whitaker
View Case »
Angeles-Mascote; U.S. v.
View Case »
Unuakhaulu v. Gonzales
View Case »
U.S. v. Franklin
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Landin-Molina v. Holder

Facts

The day after he was ordered removed, petitioner married a grandfathered alien. He argued for grandfathered status under 1255(i) based upon his wife's adjusted status. Since he was not married to the wife at the time she adjusted status, he did not accompany or follow to join a principal spouse as required under 8 U.S.C.S. 1153(d), and he could not be a derivative spouse. The other petitioner conceded removability but applied for adjustment of status. Thereafter, she married, her husband became a naturalized U.S. citizen, and he filed an I-130 petition for alien relative on her behalf. An immigration judge ordered her removal because even if the I-130 petition were approved, she could not adjust her status because the petition was filed after the sunset date for 1255(i). Her status as a mere registrant for the RAW program did not grandfather her into 1255(i); registration for the RAW program did not qualify as a labor certification application under 8 U.S.C.S. 1182(a)(5)(A).

The day after he was ordered removed, petitioner married a grandfathered alien. He argued for grandfathered status under 1255(i) based upon his wife's adjusted status. Since he was not married to the wife at the time she adjusted status, he did not accompany or follow to join a principal spouse as required under 8 U.S.C.S. 1153(d), and he could not be a derivative spouse. The other petitioner conceded removability but applied for adjustment of status. Thereafter, she married, her husband became a naturalized U.S. citizen, and he filed an I-130 petition for alien relative on her behalf. An immigration judge ordered her removal because even if the I-130 petition were approved, she could not adjust her status because the petition was filed after the sunset date for 1255(i). Her status as a mere registrant for the RAW program did not grandfather her into 1255(i); registration for the RAW program did not qualify as a labor certification application under 8 U.S.C.S. 1182(a)(5)(A).

Issue

Whether the petitioners qualified as grandfathered aliens pursuant to 8 U.S.C.S. 1225(i) for purposes of adjustment of status.

Whether the petitioners qualified as grandfathered aliens pursuant to 8 U.S.C.S. 1225(i) for purposes of adjustment of status.

Rule

Adjustment of status is generally available only to aliens who were inspected and admitted or paroled into the United States; however, under 1255(i), certain aliens who entered this country without inspection may apply for adjustment of status. Section 1255(i) expired on April 30, 2001, and its benefits are available only to those aliens who qualify as having been 'grandfathered' into the provision.

Adjustment of status is generally available only to aliens who were inspected and admitted or paroled into the United States; however, under 1255(i), certain aliens who entered this country without inspection may apply for adjustment of status. Section 1255(i) expired on April 30, 2001, and its benefits are available only to those aliens who qualify as having been 'grandfathered' into the provision.

Analysis

The court concluded that neither petitioner qualified as a grandfathered alien. Landin's marriage to his wife occurred after she adjusted to lawful permanent resident status, which meant he could not claim grandfathered status. Estrada's registration for the RAW program did not satisfy the requirement of having filed an application for labor certification, thus she also did not qualify. The court emphasized the importance of the timing of the marriage and the requirements set forth in the relevant statutes.

The court concluded that neither petitioner qualified as a grandfathered alien. Landin's marriage to his wife occurred after she adjusted to lawful permanent resident status, which meant he could not claim grandfathered status. Estrada's registration for the RAW program did not satisfy the requirement of having filed an application for labor certification, thus she also did not qualify. The court emphasized the importance of the timing of the marriage and the requirements set forth in the relevant statutes.

Conclusion

The court denied the petitions for review, affirming that neither petitioner qualified for adjustment of status under the grandfathering provisions.

The court denied the petitions for review, affirming that neither petitioner qualified for adjustment of status under the grandfathering provisions.

Who won?

The government prevailed in the case because the court found that neither petitioner met the requirements to qualify as a grandfathered alien under the applicable immigration laws.

The government prevailed in the case because the court found that neither petitioner met the requirements to qualify as a grandfathered alien under the applicable immigration laws.

You must be