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

jurisdictionappealvisadeportationnaturalization
appealvisadeportationnaturalization

Related Cases

Lok v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
View Case »
Wellington v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
View Case »
Noh v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
View Case »
Kebede v. Gonzales
View Case »
Gallimore v. United States AG
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Melian v. Immigration and Naturalization Service

Facts

Petitioner Enrique Valentin Oviedo Melian, a citizen of the Dominican Republic, entered the United States on a temporary visitor's visa in 1978 and became a permanent resident in 1982. He was later convicted of a controlled substance offense, which led the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) to initiate deportation proceedings against him in 1987. An immigration judge found him deportable, and the Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed this decision, leading to the current appeal.

Petitioner Enrique Valentin Oviedo Melian, a citizen of the Dominican Republic, entered the United States on a temporary visitor's visa in 1978 and became a permanent resident in 1982. He was later convicted of a controlled substance offense, which led the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) to initiate deportation proceedings against him in 1987.

Issue

Whether petitioner is eligible for discretionary relief from deportation under section 212(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, given the determination of his lawful domicile.

Whether petitioner is eligible for discretionary relief from deportation under section 212(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, given the determination of his lawful domicile.

Rule

Lawful domicile under section 212(c) means at least the simultaneous existence of lawful physical presence in the United States and lawful intent to remain in the United States indefinitely.

'lawful domicile' under section 212(c) means at least the simultaneous existence of lawful physical presence in the United States and lawful intent to remain in the United States indefinitely.

Analysis

The court determined that petitioner's lawful domicile commenced on June 24, 1982, when he became a permanent resident, and ended on May 28, 1987, when the INS issued a Show Cause Order. Since petitioner did not challenge the immigration judge's determination regarding the termination of his lawful domicile, the court found it lacked jurisdiction to consider his claim that his lawful domicile continued until the Board issued its final determination.

The court determined that petitioner's lawful domicile commenced on June 24, 1982, when he became a permanent resident, and ended on May 28, 1987, when the INS issued a Show Cause Order.

Conclusion

The court affirmed the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals, concluding that petitioner was ineligible for discretionary relief from deportation under section 212(c).

The court affirmed the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals, concluding that petitioner was ineligible for discretionary relief from deportation under section 212(c).

Who won?

Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) prevailed because the court upheld the Board's decision that petitioner was deportable and ineligible for a waiver.

Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) prevailed because the court upheld the Board's decision that petitioner was deportable and ineligible for a waiver.

You must be