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

deportation
deportation

Related Cases

Rodriguez-Vega; U.S. v.
View Case »
State v. Nunez-Valdez
View Case »
Francis v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
View Case »
Yih-Hsiung Wang, Matter of
View Case »
Haitian Refugee Center v. Civiletti
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Rivera-Jimenez v. Immigration and Naturalization Service

Facts

In May 1993, petitioners were served with orders to show cause as to why they should not be deported for entering the United States without inspection. The immigration judge initially granted their applications for suspension of deportation, but the BIA reversed this decision after the enactment of the IIRIRA, finding that petitioners had not established the requisite seven years of continuous physical presence due to a two-week absence in 1986. The BIA's decision was based on the new requirements set forth by the IIRIRA.

In May 1993, petitioners were served with orders to show cause as to why they should not be deported for entering the United States without inspection.

Issue

Did the BIA err in applying the stop-time rule of the IIRIRA to deny petitioners' applications for suspension of deportation?

Did the BIA err in applying the stop-time rule of the IIRIRA to deny petitioners' applications for suspension of deportation?

Rule

Under the IIRIRA, any period of continuous residence or continuous physical presence in the United States shall be deemed to end when the alien is served a notice to appear.

Under the IIRIRA, any period of continuous residence or continuous physical presence in the United States shall be deemed to end when the alien is served a notice to appear.

Analysis

The court determined that the BIA's decision was based entirely on the old standard of 'brief, casual, and innocent' absence, which was no longer applicable under the IIRIRA's stop-time rule. The court found that the petitioners' two-week absence did not meet the criteria for maintaining continuous physical presence, as the stop-time rule applied retroactively to their case. Therefore, the court concluded that the BIA's reliance on the previous standard was erroneous.

The court determined that the BIA's decision was based entirely on the old standard of 'brief, casual, and innocent' absence, which was no longer applicable under the IIRIRA's stop-time rule.

Conclusion

The court granted the petition for review, vacated the BIA's decision, and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with the IIRIRA's stop-time rule.

The court granted the petition for review, vacated the BIA's decision, and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with the IIRIRA's stop-time rule.

Who won?

Petitioners prevailed in the case as the court found that the BIA had incorrectly applied the old standard instead of the IIRIRA's stop-time rule.

Petitioners prevailed in the case as the court found that the BIA had incorrectly applied the old standard instead of the IIRIRA's stop-time rule.

You must be