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

plaintiffappeal
plaintiffappeal

Related Cases

Tachiona v. United States
View Case »
Doe v. Roman Cath. Diocese of Galveston-Houston
View Case »
Garcia-Esquivel; U.S. v.
View Case »
Sheku-Kamara v. Karn
View Case »
Henry v. Quarantillo
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Saxbe v. Bustos

Facts

Plaintiffs, farmworkers and their collective bargaining agent, sued for declaratory and injunctive relief against the admission of alien commuters under the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C.S. 1101(a)(27)(B). The appeals court held that the admission of daily commuters was proper, but the admission of seasonal commuters was not. The court granted certiorari and affirmed as to daily commuters and reversed as to seasonal commuters. The court found that commuters were not nonimmigrants under 1101(a)(15)(H)(ii) as plaintiffs contended, but rather qualified as 'special immigrants' under 101(a)(27)(B) because they satisfied the permanent residence requirement of the section.

Plaintiffs, farmworkers and their collective bargaining agent, sued for declaratory and injunctive relief against the admission of alien commuters under the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C.S. 1101(a)(27)(B). The appeals court held that the admission of daily commuters was proper, but the admission of seasonal commuters was not. The court granted certiorari and affirmed as to daily commuters and reversed as to seasonal commuters. The court found that commuters were not nonimmigrants under 1101(a)(15)(H)(ii) as plaintiffs contended, but rather qualified as 'special immigrants' under 101(a)(27)(B) because they satisfied the permanent residence requirement of the section.

Issue

The main legal issue was whether the admission of daily and seasonal commuters from Mexico and Canada under the Immigration and Nationality Act was proper.

The main legal issue was whether the admission of daily and seasonal commuters from Mexico and Canada under the Immigration and Nationality Act was proper.

Rule

The court applied the definition of 'special immigrant' under 101(a)(27)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which includes immigrants 'lawfully admitted for permanent residence, who is returning from a temporary visit abroad.'

The court applied the definition of 'special immigrant' under 101(a)(27)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which includes immigrants 'lawfully admitted for permanent residence, who is returning from a temporary visit abroad.'

Analysis

The court concluded that commuters are immigrants 'lawfully admitted for permanent residence' and that they are 'returning from a temporary visit abroad' when they enter the United States. The court found that the legislative history and administrative construction supported treating both daily and seasonal commuters similarly under the law, thus affirming the decision for daily commuters and reversing it for seasonal commuters.

The court concluded that commuters are immigrants 'lawfully admitted for permanent residence' and that they are 'returning from a temporary visit abroad' when they enter the United States. The court found that the legislative history and administrative construction supported treating both daily and seasonal commuters similarly under the law, thus affirming the decision for daily commuters and reversing it for seasonal commuters.

Conclusion

The court affirmed the appeals court decision as to daily commuters and reversed as to seasonal commuters.

The court affirmed the appeals court decision as to daily commuters and reversed as to seasonal commuters.

Who won?

The prevailing party was the plaintiffs regarding daily commuters, as the court affirmed the lower court's decision that their admission was proper under the Immigration and Nationality Act.

The prevailing party was the plaintiffs regarding daily commuters, as the court affirmed the lower court's decision that their admission was proper under the Immigration and Nationality Act.

You must be