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

statuteappealdeportationcommon lawlegislative intent
statuteappealdeportationcommon law

Related Cases

Rodriguez-Herrera v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
View Case »
Shah v. Reno
View Case »
Patel v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
View Case »
Le, Matter of
View Case »
Rubio-Rubio v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

White v. Immigration and Naturalization Service

Facts

Raymond White, a Jamaican citizen, entered the U.S. in 1978 as a nonimmigrant agricultural worker. In September 1987, White was granted lawful temporary resident status under the Special Agricultural Workers program of the Immigration Reform and Control Act. He obtained lawful permanent resident status in December 1990. In May 1990, before becoming a permanent resident, White was convicted of distributing crack cocaine, leading to deportation proceedings initiated by the INS in March 1994. White sought a waiver of deportation under 212(c) of the INA, claiming he met the requirements due to his long-standing intent to remain in the U.S.

Raymond White, a Jamaican citizen, entered the U.S. in 1978 as a nonimmigrant agricultural worker. In September 1987, White was granted lawful temporary resident status under the Special Agricultural Workers program of the Immigration Reform and Control Act. He obtained lawful permanent resident status in December 1990. In May 1990, before becoming a permanent resident, White was convicted of distributing crack cocaine, leading to deportation proceedings initiated by the INS in March 1994. White sought a waiver of deportation under 212(c) of the INA, claiming he met the requirements due to his long-standing intent to remain in the U.S.

Issue

Whether the INS's interpretation of 'domicile' under 212(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which required lawful permanent residency as a prerequisite for establishing domicile, was consistent with the statute's plain meaning.

Whether the INS's interpretation of 'domicile' under 212(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which required lawful permanent residency as a prerequisite for establishing domicile, was consistent with the statute's plain meaning.

Rule

The court held that an alien could maintain a lawful unrelinquished domicile without first becoming lawfully admitted for permanent residence, and that the textual structure of the statute did not require both seven years of domicile and permanent residency.

The court held that an alien could maintain a lawful unrelinquished domicile without first becoming lawfully admitted for permanent residence, and that the textual structure of the statute did not require both seven years of domicile and permanent residency.

Analysis

The court applied the common law definition of 'domicile,' which requires physical presence and intent to remain indefinitely, to conclude that White had established a lawful unrelinquished domicile. The court found that the INS's interpretation, which conflated 'domicile' with 'permanent residence,' was not supported by the statute's text and exceeded the agency's authority. The court emphasized that the INS's additional requirement was not present in the statute and that it frustrated the legislative intent behind the waiver process.

The court applied the common law definition of 'domicile,' which requires physical presence and intent to remain indefinitely, to conclude that White had established a lawful unrelinquished domicile. The court found that the INS's interpretation, which conflated 'domicile' with 'permanent residence,' was not supported by the statute's text and exceeded the agency's authority.

Conclusion

The court reversed the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals and remanded for consideration of Mr. White's eligibility for a 212(c) waiver.

The court reversed the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals and remanded for consideration of Mr. White's eligibility for a 212(c) waiver.

Who won?

Raymond White prevailed in the case because the court found that the INS's interpretation of 'domicile' was inconsistent with the statute's plain meaning, allowing for his eligibility for a waiver.

Raymond White prevailed in the case because the court found that the INS's interpretation of 'domicile' was inconsistent with the statute's plain meaning, allowing for his eligibility for a waiver.

You must be