|
Supreme court rules for government on immigrants' residence By James Vicini Posted 2012/05/21 at 11:20 am EDT WASHINGTON, May 21, 2012 (Reuters) — The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the length of lawfulresidence in the United States by immigrant parents cannot beconsidered by the federal government in deciding whether theirchildren should be deported. The justices unanimously handed a victory to the Obamaadministration and overturned a ruling by a U.S. appeals court thatimmigrants who entered the United States as children may counttheir parents' years in this country to satisfy the residencyrequirements. Under federal immigration law, people who have been lawfulpermanent residents in the United States for at least five yearsand have lived continuously in the country for seven years can seekleniency from the government when facing deportation. The ruling was unrelated to a more controversial pendingimmigration case involving the Obama administration's challenge toArizona's tough crackdown on illegal immigrants. A decision in thatcase is expected by the end of next month. One case decided Monday involved Carlos Gutierrez, a Mexicancitizen who became a lawful permanent residence in 2003 when he was19. He was stopped at the U.S.-Mexico border in 2005 with threeyoung illegal immigrants in his car and the U.S. government beganprocedures to deport him for immigrant smuggling. He argued his father's immigration status and years of residence inthe United States could be taken into consideration to meet theeligibility requirements to avoid deportation. The Supreme Courtdisagreed. The other case involved Damien Sawyers, a Jamaican citizen whobecame a lawful permanent resident in 1995 at the age of 15. Thegovernment began deportation proceedings against him after hisconviction for having a controlled substance in 2002 and forcocaine possession in 2005. He argued the time he spent as a minor living with his legalresident mother should be considered, a position rejected by thejustices. The administration argued that the appeals court's ruling wouldhurt the government's high-priority efforts to deport immigrantswho are criminals. Administration lawyers said the general preference for family unitydoes not trump the law's plain language that the immigrantpersonally must satisfy the eligibility requirements. The Supreme Court's opinion, written by Justice Elena Kagan,accepted the government's position. She concluded in the 13-page opinion that the view of thegovernment's Board of Immigration Appeals was based on apermissible interpretation of the law, that it was consistent withthe statute's text and was entitled to deference. There were no precise statistics on the likely number ofindividuals affected by the ruling. But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which is basedin California, which also covers Arizona and which has asignificant part of the nation's immigration cases, granted 11 suchpetitions for review last year, legal experts said. The Supreme Court cases are Holder v. Gutsier, No. 10-1542, andHolder v. Sawyers, No. 10-1543. (Reporting By James Vicini; Editing by Vicki Allen). The e-commerce company in China offers quality products such as Clear Acrylic Bowl Manufacturer , Acrylic Wine Display Manufacturer, and more. For more , please visit Acrylic Bakery Display Case today!
Related Articles -
Clear Acrylic Bowl Manufacturer, Acrylic Wine Display Manufacturer,
| 
