Also known as: immediate relative · immediate family
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
2 senses
A close family member whose presence at the scene of outrageous or negligent conduct directed at another permits recovery for resulting severe emotional distress. The category includes parents, children, and siblings when the plaintiff witnesses the harm or peril in person.
A close family member whose presence at the scene of outrageous or negligent conduct directed at another permits recovery for resulting severe emotional distress. The category includes parents, children, and siblings when the plaintiff witnesses the harm or peril in person.
Dr. Lang berated researcher Maya in the lab while Maya's mother Lila stood across the bench. Lila heard the graphic threats of blame and imprisonment, suffered severe emotional distress, and sued for intentional infliction. Because Lila is Maya's mother and was present, the immediate-family rule allows recovery even without bodily harm.
Spouses, children, and parents of United States citizens who may immigrate without numerical quota limits. These relationships trigger special visa processing that bypasses the preference system applied to other family-sponsored immigrants.
U.S. citizen Omar petitioned for his spouse to obtain permanent residence. Because the spouse qualifies as an immediate relative, the petition bypasses all quota waiting periods and proceeds directly to visa issuance once approved.
Spouses, children, and parents of United States citizens who may immigrate without numerical quota limits. These relationships trigger special visa processing that bypasses the preference system applied to other family-sponsored immigrants.
Each sense below has its own examples, sources, and questions.
Director Nora accused caseworker Lena of theft in the shelter common room. Lena's brother Mark, volunteering nearby, witnessed the outburst and suffered asthma attacks triggered by panic. Mark's presence and resulting bodily harm satisfy the immediate-family or present-bystander standard for intentional infliction liability.
2 common questions
Yes. The Restatement treats siblings as immediate family. A sibling present when outrageous conduct targets another family member may recover for severe emotional distress whether or not bodily harm results.
No. When the plaintiff is an immediate family member present at the time, severe emotional distress alone supports liability. Bodily harm is required only for non-family bystanders.
In 1966 Jagdish Rai Chadha, an East Indian born in Kenya who held a British passport, was lawfully admitted to the United States on a nonimmigrant student visa that expired on June 30, 1972. In October 1973, the District Director of the Immigration and Naturalization Service informed Chadha that he had remained longer than permitted and was therefore deportable. Chadha conceded deportability but applied for suspension under section 244(a)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952. On June 25, 1974, an Immigration Judge acting on behalf of the Attorney General suspended Chadha's deportation and adjusted his status to permanent resident after finding that he satisfied the statutory criteria of seven years' continuous presence, good moral character, and extreme hardship. A report of the suspension was transmitted to Congress as required by the Act. On December 16, 1975, the House of Representatives passed a resolution disapproving the suspension for Chadha and five other aliens on the ground that they did not meet the statutory requirements, particularly as to hardship. Pursuant to the House resolution, the Immigration Judge reopened the deportation proceedings. Chadha moved to terminate them on constitutional grounds, but the Immigration Judge ruled that he lacked authority to declare the resolution unconstitutional and ordered Chadha deported. Chadha appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals, which likewise held that it had no authority to pass on the constitutionality of the resolution and dismissed the appeal. Chadha then filed a petition for review in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The Immigration and Naturalization Service appeared and urged the court to hold the House resolution unconstitutional. After inviting briefs from the Senate and House as amici curiae, the Court of Appeals held the resolution unconstitutional because it was a legislative act that failed to satisfy the requirements of Article I, sections 1 and 7, and set aside the deportation order. The Supreme Court granted certiorari in the consolidated cases to address the constitutional question.
View caseU.S. citizen Isabelle filed petitions for her parents abroad. The parents, classified as immediate relatives, receive unlimited visa numbers and avoid the numerical caps that delay other family categories.
Shortly after taking office, President Trump signed Executive Order 13769 directing a review of information provided by foreign governments about their nationals seeking entry and temporarily restricting entry from seven countries previously identified as posing terrorism risks. After courts enjoined that order, the President revoked it and issued Executive Order 13780, which again directed a worldwide review and temporarily restricted entry from six of the countries. Following completion of the review, the President issued Proclamation No. 9645 on September 24, 2017, placing entry restrictions on nationals of eight countries—Chad, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Syria, Venezuela, and Yemen—whose systems for managing and sharing information the President deemed inadequate. The Proclamation imposed varying restrictions by country, exempted lawful permanent residents and asylees, provided for case-by-case waivers, and directed ongoing 180-day reviews; restrictions on Chad were later lifted after it improved its practices. Plaintiffs including the State of Hawaii, three U.S. citizens with foreign-national relatives from Iran, Syria, and Yemen applying for visas, and the Muslim Association of Hawaii challenged the Proclamation in the District of Hawaii on statutory and Establishment Clause grounds. The district court granted a nationwide preliminary injunction. The Ninth Circuit affirmed on statutory grounds. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.
View case2 common questions
No. Immediate relatives, including parents of citizens, are exempt from numerical limits. They may immigrate as soon as their petitions are approved and visas become available without regard to country quotas.
No. Immigration law limits immediate relatives to spouses, minor children, and parents of U.S. citizens. Siblings and grandparents fall into preference categories subject to quotas.
…204, and 245 of the Act, 8 U. S. C. §§ 1151(b), 1154, and 1255. It is true that Chadha may be eligible for classification as an "immediate relative" and, as such, could lawfully be accorded permanent residence. Moreover, in March 1980, just prior to the decision of the Court of Appeals in these cases, Congress enacted the Refugee Act…