Also known as: lawful admissions · lawfully admitted · lawful entry
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
An immigration status arising from entry into the United States under a valid visa or other authorization that confers permanent residence. This status causes an alien who is domiciled in a state to be treated as a citizen of that state for purposes of diversity jurisdiction and venue.
Carlos, a Mexican citizen who obtained lawful admission and has lived in Michigan for five years, sues a Michigan auto-parts supplier and a Canadian manufacturer in federal court. The supplier moves to dismiss. The court grants the motion because Carlos's lawful admission and Michigan domicile cause the statute to treat him as a Michigan citizen, destroying the required alignment for alienage jurisdiction.
Marco, a Philippine citizen who received lawful admission and is domiciled in State X, is sued by a Greek shipping company in federal court in State X. He moves to dismiss for lack of venue. The court denies the motion because his lawful admission and domicile fix his residence in the district where he lives for all venue purposes.
An alien facing deportation obtains a suspension order that later receives congressional ratification. The Attorney General then records the alien's lawful admission for permanent residence. The recording converts the prior deferment into a final grant of permanent status.
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 caseA lawfully admitted permanent resident applies for a federal civil-service position but is rejected under a citizenship-only regulation. The resident challenges the denial. The court evaluates whether the regulation can stand given the resident's lawful admission and established ties to the United States.
Five Chinese aliens lawfully admitted for permanent residence brought this litigation after each was denied federal employment solely because of alienage. Mow Sun Wong, admitted in 1969 after working as an electrical engineer in China, participated in the California Supplemental Training and Education Program and was assigned to the General Services Administration but could not obtain a janitor position. Siu Hung Mok, admitted in 1968 with eighteen years of business experience in China, likewise participated in the STEP program and was assigned to the Federal Records Center of GSA but could not retain a file clerk position. Kae Cheong Lui performed satisfactory work for the Post Office Department for ten days before termination when his personnel record showed he was not a citizen. Francene Lum, admitted in 1946 with fifteen years of teaching experience and a master's degree in education, was not permitted to take an examination for an evaluator position in the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Anna Yu, admitted in 1965, was barred from taking a typing test for a clerk-typist position. Two of the plaintiffs had filed declarations of intent to become citizens while the other three had not. On December 22, 1970, the five plaintiffs commenced a class action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California naming the Chairman and Commissioners of the Civil Service Commission and the heads of the three agencies that had denied them employment. The complaint alleged that approximately four million aliens reside in the United States, that about three hundred thousand federal jobs become available each year, and that noncitizens are generally barred from competing for those positions. The District Court rejected a jurisdictional challenge but ruled for the defendants on the merits after defendants moved to dismiss and plaintiffs moved for summary judgment supported by affidavits. Four plaintiffs appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. While the appeal was pending for over two years, the Supreme Court decided Sugarman v. Dougall and In re Griffiths on June 25, 1973. The Court of Appeals reversed the District Court judgment. Only the Chairman and Commissioners of the Civil Service Commission petitioned for certiorari. In 1971 Congress established the United States Postal Service and removed its officers and employees from the jurisdiction of the Civil Service Commission. In 1974 the Postal Service amended its regulation to make noncitizens who have permanent resident alien status eligible for most positions. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide whether the Civil Service Commission regulation barring resident aliens from federal competitive civil service employment is constitutional. The regulation at issue, 5 CFR § 338.101, provided that a person may be admitted to competitive examination or given appointment only if a citizen of or owing permanent allegiance to the United States, with limited exceptions for executive assignments when no qualified citizens are available. The Commission construed the permanent allegiance category to cover only natives of American Samoa.
View caseChildren of parents who obtained lawful admission enroll in Texas public schools. The state seeks to exclude them on immigration grounds. The court holds that the children's access to education cannot be denied solely because of their parents' status after lawful admission.
Since the late 19th century the United States has restricted immigration into this country. Unsanctioned entry is a crime and those who enter unlawfully are subject to deportation, yet a substantial number of persons have succeeded in unlawfully entering and now live within various States including Texas. In May 1975 the Texas Legislature revised its education laws to withhold state funds from local school districts for the education of children not legally admitted into the United States. The revision also authorized local districts to deny enrollment to such children under Tex. Educ. Code Ann. § 21.031. In September 1977 a class action was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas on behalf of school-age children of Mexican origin residing in Smith County who could not establish legal admission. The suit challenged their exclusion from the Tyler Independent School District schools, and the State of Texas intervened as a defendant. After certifying a class of all undocumented school-age children of Mexican origin in the district, the court held an extensive hearing in December 1977. It found that the statute had neither the purpose nor effect of keeping illegal aliens out of Texas, that enrollment increases stemmed primarily from legal residents, and that barring undocumented children would save money but would not necessarily improve education quality. The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit upheld the injunction. During 1978 and 1979 additional suits were filed in other Texas districts. The Judicial Panel on Multi-district Litigation consolidated them in the Southern District of Texas. After a hearing the district court held the statute violated equal protection, the Court of Appeals summarily affirmed, and the Supreme Court noted probable jurisdiction and consolidated the cases.
View caseA child born abroad to a parent who received lawful admission claims derivative citizenship. The government contests the claim on timing grounds. The court examines whether the parent's lawful admission satisfies the statutory conditions for transmission of citizenship.
Jose Morales was born in Puerto Rico in 1900 and acquired U.S. citizenship at birth. After living in Puerto Rico for nearly two decades, he left his childhood home on February 27, 1919, twenty days short of his nineteenth birthday, to take up employment in the Dominican Republic. He never returned to the United States. In 1959, at age nineteen, Jose fathered respondent Luis Ramon Morales-Santana with a Dominican woman to whom he was not married. Jose acknowledged paternity several years after the birth. He married the mother in 1970, after which his name was added to the child's birth certificate. Luis moved to the United States at age thirteen and has resided in this country most of his life. In 2000, following convictions for felonies including attempted murder, he was placed in removal proceedings. He claimed derivative U.S. citizenship through his father, but an immigration judge and the Board of Immigration Appeals rejected the claim because Jose had not satisfied the ten-year physical-presence requirement applicable to unwed citizen fathers. The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed the Board of Immigration Appeals, holding that the gender-based distinction violated equal protection and that Morales-Santana was entitled to citizenship. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.
View caseA foreign citizen who has received lawful admission for permanent residence and is domiciled in the same state as a U.S. citizen party is treated as a citizen of that state. The statute then withholds alienage jurisdiction over the action between them.
Yes. An alien who has received lawful admission for permanent residence is deemed to reside in the judicial district of domicile for all venue purposes under § 1391(c)(1).
Continuous residence for several years, obtaining a green card, paying state income taxes, registering a vehicle, obtaining a state driver's license, and joining local organizations demonstrate the physical presence and intent to remain indefinitely required for domicile.
Yes. In a direct action the insurer takes the citizenship of the insured. If the insured's sole member is a permanent resident domiciled in the plaintiff's state after lawful admission, complete diversity fails.
…by Chief Justice Burger I Chadha is an East Indian who was born in Kenya and holds a British passport. In 1966, he was lawfully admitted to the United States on a nonimmigrant student visa. His visa expired on June 30, 1972. In a letter dated October 6, 1973, the District Director of the Immigration and Naturalization…