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

appealpleadeportation
appeal

Related Cases

Lyons v. Pearce
View Case »
Mendez-Morales v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
View Case »
Gaiskov v. Holder
View Case »
Flores-Chavez v. Ashcroft
View Case »
Romero-Vilca; U.S. v.
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Rosario v. Immigration and Naturalization Service

Facts

Ruben Rosario, a native and citizen of the Dominican Republic, was found deportable under the Immigration and Nationality Act after pleading guilty to drug-related charges. He was a permanent resident in the U.S. since age 12 but was deemed ineligible for a waiver of deportation due to insufficient domicile duration. The Board of Immigration Appeals upheld the deportation order, stating that Rosario did not meet the seven-year domicile requirement necessary for relief under 212(c). Rosario argued that his domicile should be considered as that of his mother, who had been in the U.S. longer.

Petitioner, a native and citizen of the Dominican Republic, was born on September 22, 1971 and lawfully acquired permanent resident status in the United States when he landed here on December 3, 1983 at the age of 12.

Issue

Whether the petitioner has met the necessary conditions to be eligible to seek relief from an order of deportation under 212(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.

The question before us is whether this petitioner has met the necessary conditions to be eligible to seek that relief.

Rule

To be eligible for a waiver of deportation under 212(c), a permanent resident alien must have seven consecutive years of domicile in the United States.

To be eligible to seek such relief, a permanent resident alien must have seven consecutive years of domicile in the United States.

Analysis

The court found that the Board of Immigration Appeals had improperly interpreted the term 'domicile' by requiring physical presence for seven consecutive years, which is inconsistent with the traditional understanding of domicile for minors. The court held that a minor's domicile follows that of their parents, and thus, if Rosario could demonstrate his mother's domicile and their significant relationship, he could be eligible for the waiver.

The court found that the Board of Immigration Appeals had improperly interpreted the term 'domicile' by requiring physical presence for seven consecutive years, which is inconsistent with the traditional understanding of domicile for minors.

Conclusion

The court granted the petition for review and remanded the matter for further proceedings, indicating that if Rosario could provide sufficient evidence of his mother's domicile and their relationship, he would be eligible to seek a waiver under 212(c).

We grant the petition because in our view petitioner satisfies the conditions for eligibility.

Who won?

Petitioner Ruben Rosario prevailed because the court found the Board's interpretation of domicile unreasonable and allowed for the possibility of him establishing eligibility for a waiver.

Petitioner Ruben Rosario prevailed because the court found the Board's interpretation of domicile unreasonable.

You must be