Term: 2011
Docket: 10-1542
Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General, Petitioner v. Carlos Martinez Gutierrez
- Pro
10-1542 HOLDER V. GUITIERREZ DECISION BELOW: 411 Fed. Appx. 121 CONSOLIDATED WITH 10-1543 FOR ONE HOUR ORAL ARGUMENT. CERT. GRANTED 9/27/2011 QUESTION PRESENTED: 1. Whether a parent's years of lawful permanent resident status can be imputed to an alien who resided with that parent as an unemancipated minor, for the purpose of satisfying 8 U.S.C. 1229b(a)(1)'s requirement that the alien seeking cancellation of removal have "been an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence for not less than 5 years." 2. Whether a parent's years of residence after lawful admission to the United States can be imputed to an alien who resided with that parent as an unemancipated minor, for the purpose of satisfying 8 U.S.C. 1229b(a)(2)'s requirement that the alien seeking cancellation of removal have "resided in the United States continuously for 7 years after having been admitted in any status." LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 08-70436
In the case of Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General, Petitioner v. Carlos Martinez Gutierrez in 2011, the U.S Supreme Court ruled that an immigrant cannot use their parent's years of legal residency to satisfy a requirement for avoiding deportation. The respondent, Carlos Martinez Gutierrez was brought illegally into the United States as a child by his father who later became a lawful permanent resident (LPR). When he faced removal proceedings after being caught smuggling aliens across the border, he applied for cancellation of removal which requires at least five years LPR status and seven years continuous residence immediately preceding application date. He argued that his father’s years should count towards these requirements since they lived together during those times but this argument was rejected by both Immigration Judge and Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). However Ninth Circuit court reversed BIA decision stating that it is consistent with ordinary family living arrangements and immigration laws’ purposes to allow such imputation from parents to children. The Supreme Court disagreed with Ninth Circuit ruling stating there is no statutory provision or precedent allowing such imputation between family members in immigration law context thus affirmed BIA interpretation as reasonable one under Chevron deference standard.
In the dissenting opinion for the case of Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General v. Carlos Martinez Gutierrez, Justice Samuel Alito argued that the majority's interpretation of immigration law was incorrect and inconsistent with Congress' intent. He contended that allowing an immigrant to count their parents' years of residency towards their own for purposes of cancellation of removal is not supported by statutory text or legislative history. According to him, this approach could lead to absurd results where a young adult who has spent very little time in the U.S could avoid deportation due to his parent’s long-term residence status while another individual who lived in America most part of his life but whose parents were recent immigrants would be deported. He believed such outcomes are contrary to what Congress intended when it established rules for cancelation-of-removal relief under immigration laws.
