Document: 479 U.S. 85 107 S.Ct. 379 93 L.Ed.2d 326 IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICEv.Virginia HECTOR. No. 86-21. Nov. 17, 1986. PER CURIAM. 1 Virginia Hector, a native and citizen of Dominica, West Indies, entered the United States in April 1975 as nonimmigrant visitor for pleasure. She has remained this country illegally since 30, 1975, when her authorization to stay expired. The youngest four children, 10-year-old boy, resides with here; other three children live their grandparents Dominica. In 1983, two Hector's nieces, citizens aged 10 11, came order attend school what parents perceived be superior educational system. nieces' continue reside 2 Immigration Naturalization Service (INS) instituted deportation proceedings against Hector July 1983. conceded deportability, but applied suspension pursuant § 244(a)(1) Nationality Act (Act), 66 Stat. 214, amended, 8 U.S.C. 1254(a)(1). That section authorizes Attorney General, his discretion, suspend an illegal alien, adjust alien's status that alien lawfully admitted permanent residence, if deportable 3 "has been physically present continuous period not less than seven years immediately preceding date . application, proves during all such he was is person good moral character; whose would, opinion result extreme hardship or spouse, parent, child, who residence." 4 An Judge Board Appeals (Board) found satisfied first statutory elements—continuous physical residence character she could demonstrate herself, "spouse, child." With respect determined that, factual matter, separation from them would constitute herself;1 legal concluded niece "child" within meaning 244(a)(1). 5 Court Third Circuit granted petition review remanded case Board. 782 F.2d 1028 (1986). court held had erred giving sufficient consideration whether relationship nieces functional equivalent parent-child relationship. thus instructed ascertain there parental-type relationship, and, so, determine experience deportation.2 6 so holding, relied on its earlier decision Tovar v. INS, 612 794 (1980), which term used includes individuals do fit definition set out 101(b)(1), 1101(b)(1), closely resembles parent child.3 7 Because we find plain language statute compelling, reverse, hold required under consider third party defined by Act. Congress specifically identified relatives considered, then forth unusually detailed unyielding provisions defining each class included relatives.4 particularly exhaustive.5 never claimed, did hold, qualify definition. As have explained reference technical contained statute: 9 "With these legislative policy distinctions, it argued line should drawn at different point definitions deny preferential [some] share strong family ties. But clear our cases are questions entrusted exclusively political branches Government, no judicial authority substitute judgment Congress." Fiallo Bell, 430 787, 798, 97 1473, 1481, 52 50 (1977). Thus, even constrained Congress, through statute,6 precluded approach "child." Cf. INS Phinpathya, 464 183, 194, 104 584, 591, 78 401 (1984) (refusing ignore "the congressional mandate statute" where "Congress considered harsh consequences actions"). shown willingness redefine number occasions,7 authorized us adopt definition.8 11 Accordingly, certiorari granted, reversed. 12 It ordered. 13 Justice BRENNAN grant oral argument. 14 MARSHALL dissents summary disposition, ordered without affording parties prior notice opportunity file briefs merits. See, e.g., Acosta Louisiana Dept. Health Human Resources, 478 251, 106 2876, 92 192 (1986) (MARSHALL, J., dissenting). "[t]he emotional respondent due difficulties encountered also does combined factors case." App. Pet. Cert. 12a. Contreras-Buenfil 712 401, 403 (CA9 1983); Antoine-Dorcelli 703 19, 22 (CA1 1983). Both held, alternative, akin mother daughter any event, deportation. however, foreclosed presentation evidence issues, meaningfully addressed relevant factor. 4a. Garth dissented, concluding adequately issue. Id., 5a, n. 1. Courts reached varying conclusions relative loved one statute's child must independently assessing indicated, look some experience, they definitional See 794, 797-798 (1980). A Circuits rejected flexible approach. Zamora-Garcia 737 488 (CA5 1984); Contreras-Buenfil, supra, 403. "parent" 1101(b)(2); "spouse" 1101(a)(35). provides: "(b) subchapters I II chapter— "(1) means unmarried twenty-one age is— "(A) legitimate child; "(B) stepchild, born wedlock, provided eighteen time marriage creating stepchild occurred; "(C) legitimated law child's domicile, father's outside States, legitimation takes place before reaches custody legitimating legitimation; "(D) illegitimate by, whom, behalf status, privilege, benefit sought virtue natural mother; "(E) adopted while sixteen thereafter of, resided with, adopting least years: Provided, shall thereafter, parentage, accorded right, chapter; "(F) filed accord classification immediate 1151(b) title, orphan because death disappearance abandonment desertion loss from, both parents, whom sole surviving incapable providing proper care writing irrevocably released emigration adoption; abroad spouse jointly, twenty-five age, personally saw observed adoption proceedings; coming complied preadoption requirements, any, proposed residence: General will furnished States: Provided further, adoptive chapter." 1101(b)(1). provision, 1254(a), part subchapter II; therefore applies. limiting nature corroborated history provision deportation, Senate draft bill focused "immediate family." S. 716, 82d Cong., 1st Sess., (1951). prepared analysis expressed concern about undefined "obscure, uncertain, difficult, impossible, administer" "conceivably claimed include blood marriage, might living him household." Analysis 244-2 244-3 (1951) (emphasis original). Instead, asked list "particular intended described." 244-3. eventually passed "parent, child" now effect. similarly demonstrates actively engaged delineating just how broad wishes be. originally enacted, 21 age. U.S., 797, S.Ct., 1480. repeatedly fine-tuned There separate amendments, adding refining Sept. 1957, Pub.L. 85-316, 2, 71 639; 26, 1961, 87-301, §§ 1-4, 75 650-651; Oct. 3, 1965, 89-236, 8(c), 79 917; Dec. 29, 1981, 97-116, 95 1611. light close attention specific issue, especially bound pay heed words chosen. 6, supra. Similarly, willing correct inequities applying provision. recently enacted Reform Control 1986, 99-603, 100 3359, explicitly amended "overrule [464 401] (1984), absence, however brief, breaks continuity presence." H.R.Rep. 99-682, pt. 1, p. 124 Our decision, course, affect possibility may entitled relief amnesty newly

Category: 1