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

due processvisadeportationnaturalizationliens
visadeportationnaturalizationliens

Related Cases

Itaeva v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
View Case »
Ramsay v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
View Case »
Volt Technical Services Corp. v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
View Case »
BIJAN v. UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP IMMIGRATION SERVICES
View Case »
Perejoan-Palau v. USCIS
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Ram v. Immigration and Naturalization Service

Facts

Petitioners, ethnic Indian natives and citizens of Fiji, entered the United States as non-immigrant visitors in 1987. After overstaying their visas, they were served with Orders to Show Cause by the Immigration and Naturalization Service in 1988, leading to deportation proceedings. They sought suspension of deportation, claiming they had accumulated the necessary seven years of continuous physical presence while in proceedings, but the BIA denied their petition based on the stop-time rule.

Petitioners are ethnic Indian natives and citizens of Fiji. Fleeing a series of coups in Fiji, Petitioners entered the United States on August 22, 1987 as non-immigrant visitors. Because Petitioners remained in this country longer than their visas permitted, the Immigration and Naturalization Service ('INS') served Petitioners with Orders to Show Cause ('OSCs') on May 17, 1988.

Issue

Whether the stop-time rule applies to petitioners who were in deportation proceedings and whether its application violates due process or equal protection rights.

The question we must answer, and the issue about which the parties disagree, is whether Petitioners fall within the boundaries of this transitional rule, and thus, the stop-time rule.

Rule

The stop-time rule under IIRIRA states that the period of continuous physical presence ends when deportation proceedings commence, and this rule applies to transitional rule aliens.

That rule requires aliens to meet the continuous physical presence requirement before their deportation proceedings commence.

Analysis

The court determined that the stop-time rule applied to the petitioners despite their claims of eligibility for suspension of deportation. It found that the legislative history and the explicit language of IIRIRA section 309(c)(5)(A) indicated that the stop-time rule was intended to apply to all aliens in deportation proceedings, including those initiated by Orders to Show Cause. The court also rejected the due process challenge, concluding that the application of the stop-time rule was not impermissibly retroactive.

The court determined that the stop-time rule applied to the petitioners despite their claims of eligibility for suspension of deportation. It found that the legislative history and the explicit language of IIRIRA section 309(c)(5)(A) indicated that the stop-time rule was intended to apply to all aliens in deportation proceedings, including those initiated by Orders to Show Cause.

Conclusion

The court denied the petition for review, affirming the BIA's final order of deportation and holding that the stop-time rule applied to the petitioners without violating their constitutional rights.

The court denied the petition for review, affirming the BIA's final order of deportation and holding that the stop-time rule applied to the petitioners without violating their constitutional rights.

Who won?

The INS prevailed in the case as the court upheld the BIA's decision to apply the stop-time rule to the petitioners.

The INS prevailed in the case as the court upheld the BIA's decision to apply the stop-time rule to the petitioners.

You must be