Legislación Judicial de Estados Unidos Estados Unidos

Illegal Immigration and Immigrant Responsibility Act

Fecha de aprobación 28 de marzo de 2012

PANAGIS VARTELAS, PETITIONER v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., ATTORNEY GENERALON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
[March 28, 2012]
JUSTICE GINSBURG delivered the opinion of the Court.
Panagis Vartelas, a native of Greece, became a lawful permanent resident of the United States in 1989. He pleaded guilty to a felony (conspiring to make a counterfeit security) in 1994, and served a prison sentence of four months for that offense. Vartelas traveled to Greece in 2003 to visit his parents. On his return to the United States a week later, he was treated as an inadmissible alien and placed in removal proceedings. Under the law governing at the time of Vartelas’ plea, an alien in his situation could travel abroad for brief periods without jeopardizing his resident alien status. See 8 U. S. C. §1101(a)(13) (1988 ed.), as construed in Rosenberg v. Fleuti, 374 U. S. 449 (1963).
In 1996, Congress enacted the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA), 110 Stat. 3009–546. That Act effectively precluded foreign travel by lawful permanent residents who had a conviction like Vartelas’. Under IIRIRA, such aliens, on return from a sojourn abroad, however brief, may be permanently removed from the United States. See 8 U. S. C.
2 VARTELAS v. HOLDER Opinion of the Court
§1101(a)(13)(C)(v); §1182(a)(2).
This case presents a question of retroactivity not ad-
dressed by Congress: As to a lawful permanent resident convicted of a crime before the effective date of IIRIRA, which regime governs, the one in force at the time of the conviction, or IIRIRA? If the former, Vartelas’ brief trip abroad would not disturb his lawful permanent resi- dent status. If the latter, he may be denied reentry. We conclude that the relevant provision of IIRIRA, §1101(a)(13)(C)(v), attached a new disability (denial of reentry) in respect to past events (Vartelas’ pre-IIRIRA offense, plea, and conviction). Guided by the deeply rooted presumption against retroactive legislation, we hold that §1101(a)(13)(C)(v) does not apply to Vartelas’ conviction. The impact of Vartelas’ brief travel abroad on his per- manent resident status is therefore determined not by IIRIRA, but by the legal regime in force at the time of his conviction.

Invalid URL for PDF Viewer Descargar el documento

Clasificación

Nivel legislativo

Judicial

País(es)

Estados Unidos



Iniciativas recientes

Publicada el 16 de agosto de 2019

Department of Homeland Security vs. Regents of the University of California, et al.

Publicada el 26 de junio de 2019

State of Washington et al. vs. USA

Publicada el 21 de junio de 2019

Affording Congress an Opportunity to Address Family Separation

Publicada el 11 de junio de 2019

U.S.-Mexico Joint Declaration

Iniciativas relacionadas
No hay iniciativas relacionadas
otras iniciativas

Publicada el 9 de agosto de 2005

Proposición 200

Publicada el 21 de abril de 2011

SB 24

Publicada el 19 de marzo de 2013

SB 108

Publicada el 28 de junio de 2016

287(g)