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

statuteimmigration lawdeportationnaturalizationrespondentliens
attorneystatuteextraditionimmigration lawdeportationrespondentliens

Related Cases

Sulit v. Schiltgen
View Case »
Lopez-Amaro v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
View Case »
Wireko v. Reno
View Case »
Nwankwo v. Reno
View Case »
Villegas-Valenzuela v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Rosenberg v. Fleuti

Facts

Respondent Fleuti, a Swiss national, had been a permanent resident of the United States since 1952, except for a brief visit to Mexico in 1956. The Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) sought to deport him, claiming he was excludable due to a prior conviction and later for being a homosexual, which they classified as a psychopathic personality. The Ninth Circuit found the deportation order unconstitutional due to vagueness in the statute applied to Fleuti.

Respondent Fleuti is a Swiss national who was originally admitted to this country for permanent residence on October 9, 1952, and has been here continuously since except for a visit of 'about a couple hours' duration to Ensenada, Mexico, in August 1956.

Issue

Did Fleuti's return to the United States from his brief trip to Mexico constitute an 'entry' under the Immigration and Nationality Act, thereby making him excludable for a condition existing at that time?

The question we must consider, more specifically, is whether Fleuti's short visit to Mexico can possibly be regarded as a 'departure to a foreign port or place . . . [that] was not intended,' within the meaning of the [*453] exception to the term 'entry' created by the statute.

Rule

Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, an alien's return to the U.S. after a brief absence may not be considered an 'entry' if the alien can prove that the departure was not intended.

'The term 'entry' means any coming of an alien into the United States, from a foreign port or place or from an outlying possession, whether voluntarily or otherwise, except that an alien having a lawful permanent residence in the United [****7] States shall not be regarded as making an entry into the United States for the purposes of the immigration laws if the alien proves to the satisfaction of the Attorney General that his departure to a foreign port or place or to an outlying possession was not intended or reasonably to be expected by him or his presence in a foreign port or place or in an outlying possession was not voluntary: Provided, That no person whose departure from the United States was occasioned by deportation proceedings, extradition, or other legal process shall be held to be entitled to such exception.'

Analysis

The Court analyzed whether Fleuti's short visit to Mexico could be regarded as a departure that was not intended, which would exempt him from being classified as making an 'entry' under the immigration laws. The Court noted that the definition of 'entry' had evolved and that strict adherence to the definition could lead to harsh consequences for aliens. The Court emphasized the need to consider the intent behind Fleuti's brief absence.

The definition of 'entry' as applied for various purposes in our immigration laws was evolved judicially, only becoming encased in statutory form with the inclusion of 101 (a)(13) in the 1952 Act. In the early cases there was developed a judicial definition of 'entry' which had harsh consequences for aliens.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the Ninth Circuit and remanded the case for further proceedings to determine Fleuti's intent regarding his departure.

The Court vacated the judgment and remanded the action, so that a determination could be made as to whether respondent intended to depart the country, within the meaning of the Immigration and Nationality Act, when he made a brief visit to Mexico.

Who won?

Fleuti prevailed in the case as the Supreme Court found that the deportation order was not valid without a clear determination of his intent to depart.

Fleuti prevailed in the case as the Supreme Court found that the deportation order was not valid without a clear determination of his intent to depart.

You must be