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

plaintiffstatutedeportation
plaintiffstatutedeportation

Related Cases

Baker v. Carr
View Case »
Kanai v. Department of Homeland Security
View Case »
Kay v. Ashcroft
View Case »
Rios v. Jenkins
View Case »
Shivaraman v. Ashcroft
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Smart v. Shalala

Facts

The plaintiff Rowell Victor Smart was born in England in 1918 and brought to the United States at the age of two. He lived in the U.S. for 40 years, working and paying Social Security taxes, until he was deported in 1961 for cashing a bad check. Smart unlawfully reentered the U.S. multiple times and worked under a false name until his arrest in 1988. When he applied for Social Security retirement benefits in 1989, he was denied due to not being lawfully admitted for permanent residence after his deportation.

The plaintiff Rowell Victor Smart was born in England in 1918 and brought to the United States at the age of two. He lived in the U.S. for 40 years, working and paying Social Security taxes, until he was deported in 1961 for cashing a bad check. Smart unlawfully reentered the U.S. multiple times and worked under a false name until his arrest in 1988. When he applied for Social Security retirement benefits in 1989, he was denied due to not being lawfully admitted for permanent residence after his deportation.

Issue

Whether Smart was eligible for Social Security retirement benefits despite being a previously deported alien not lawfully admitted for permanent residence.

Whether Smart was eligible for Social Security retirement benefits despite being a previously deported alien not lawfully admitted for permanent residence.

Rule

The statute under which the Secretary denied benefits provides that 'if any individual is `deported `no [retirement] benefit `shall be paid `before such individual is thereafter lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent residence.'

The statute under which the Secretary denied benefits provides that 'if any individual is `deported `no [retirement] benefit `shall be paid `before such individual is thereafter lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent residence.'

Analysis

The court applied the rule by determining that Smart had not been lawfully admitted for permanent residence since his deportation. The court noted that Smart's claim of being 'permanently residing under color of law' did not equate to lawful admission, as he was still subject to deportation and did not enjoy the privileges associated with permanent residency.

The court applied the rule by determining that Smart had not been lawfully admitted for permanent residence since his deportation. The court noted that Smart's claim of being 'permanently residing under color of law' did not equate to lawful admission, as he was still subject to deportation and did not enjoy the privileges associated with permanent residency.

Conclusion

The court affirmed the lower court's decision that denied Smart's claim for Social Security retirement benefits because he was not a permanent resident of the United States and remained subject to deportation.

The court affirmed the lower court's decision that denied Smart's claim for Social Security retirement benefits because he was not a permanent resident of the United States and remained subject to deportation.

Who won?

The Secretary of Health and Human Services prevailed because Smart did not meet the statutory requirement of being lawfully admitted for permanent residence after his deportation.

The Secretary of Health and Human Services prevailed because Smart did not meet the statutory requirement of being lawfully admitted for permanent residence after his deportation.

You must be