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

Related Cases

Iqbal; U.S. v.
View Case »
Quintero-Cisneros v. Sessions
View Case »
Uskokovic v. Sullivan
View Case »
A.Z. ex rel. B.Z. v. Higher Education Student Assistance Auth.
View Case »
Vaello Madero; U.S. v.
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Lino v. Gonzales

Facts

Francisca Lino is a native and citizen of Mexico. On July 26, 1999, Lino attempted to enter the United States at El Paso, Texas claiming to be Francisca Burciaga-Amaro. The border patrol found her removable and issued an expedited removal order. On September 1, 1999, Lino illegally reentered the United States near El Paso, Texas. She has been in the United States since that time. On April 13, 2001, she married her husband, Diego Lino, a naturalized United States citizen. Together, they have three daughters who are all United States citizens. The younger daughters are twins with severe developmental problems due to their premature birth. Lino currently resides with her husband and three children in Woodridge, Illinois.

Francisca Lino is a native and citizen of Mexico. On July 26, 1999, Lino attempted to enter the United States at El Paso, Texas claiming to be Francisca Burciaga-Amaro. The border patrol found her removable and issued an expedited removal order. On September 1, 1999, Lino illegally reentered the United States near El Paso, Texas. She has been in the United States since that time. On April 13, 2001, she married her husband, Diego Lino, a naturalized United States citizen. Together, they have three daughters who are all United States citizens. The younger daughters are twins with severe developmental problems due to their premature birth. Lino currently resides with her husband and three children in Woodridge, Illinois.

Issue

At issue in this case is the intersection of two provisions of the INA, 245(i) and 241(a)(5).

At issue in this case is the intersection of two provisions of the INA, 245(i) and 241(a)(5).

Rule

Section 241(a)(5) plainly precludes a previously removed alien who has since illegally reentered the United States from adjusting her status under 245(i).

Section 241(a)(5) plainly precludes a previously removed alien who has since illegally reentered the United States from adjusting her status under 245(i).

Analysis

While the facts of this case are compelling, 241(a)(5) plainly precludes a previously removed alien who has since illegally reentered the United States from adjusting her status under 245(i). Our decision in Labojewski v. Gonzales, 407 F.3d 814 (7th Cir. 2005), is instructive. We upheld ICE's determination that the petitioner was statutorily barred, under 241(a)(5), from adjusting his immigrant status under 245(i).

While the facts of this case are compelling, 241(a)(5) plainly precludes a previously removed alien who has since illegally reentered the United States from adjusting her status under 245(i). Our decision in Labojewski v. Gonzales, 407 F.3d 814 (7th Cir. 2005), is instructive. We upheld ICE's determination that the petitioner was statutorily barred, under 241(a)(5), from adjusting his immigrant status under 245(i).

Conclusion

For the above stated reasons, we DENY Lino's petition for review.

For the above stated reasons, we DENY Lino's petition for review.

Who won?

The government prevailed in the case because the court upheld the reinstatement of the removal order and denied Lino's application for adjustment of status based on the clear statutory language of the INA.

The government prevailed in the case because the court upheld the reinstatement of the removal order and denied Lino's application for adjustment of status based on the clear statutory language of the INA.

You must be