Yeşil_Kart_(Amerika_Birleşik_Devletleri)
Yeşil Kart başvuru sonuçları Birleşik Devletler Vatandaşlık ve Göçmenlik Hizmetleri tarafınca belirlenir, ancak bazı durumlar da Göçmenlik Temyiz Kurulu'nun üst yetkilileri, herhangi bir federal yargıç, veya ABD Başsavcısı adına hareket eden bir yargıç, bir mahkeme emri imzalayarak ve çıkararak kişiye kalıcı ikamet izni verebilir. U.S.C. § 1252(f) ("İhtiyati tedbirin sınırı"); Jennings v. Rodriguez, 583 U.S. ___, ___, [https://www.leagle.com/decision/insco20180227f29 138 S.Ct. 830], 851 (2018); Wheaton College v. Burwell, [https://casetext.com/case/wheaton-coll-v-burwell#p2811 134 S.Ct. 2806], 2810-11 (2014) ("Under our precedents, an injunction is appropriate only if (1) it is necessary or appropriate in aid of our jurisdiction, and (2) the legal rights at issue are indisputably clear.") (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted); Lux v. Rodrigues, 561 U.S. 1306 , 1308 (2010); Correctional Services Corp. v. Malesko, 534 U.S. 61 , 74 (2001) (stating that "injunctive relief has long been recognized as the proper means for preventing entities from acting unconstitutionally."); Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418 , 443 (2009) (Justice Alito dissenting with Justice Thomas); see also Alli v. Decker, 650 F.3d 1007 , 1010-11 (3d Cir. 2011); Andreiu v. Ashcroft, 253 F.3d 477, 482-85 (9th Cir. 2001) (en banc). Yeşil Kart almak isteyen göçmen işçiler ise I-140 formunu kullanarak başvuruyu gerçekleştirir. Bir Yasal Daimî İkamet sahibi, 15 yıldan az bir ceza mahkûmiyeti—özellikle ciddi veya ağırlaştırılmış bir suç—ile karşı karşıya kalırsa, doğrudan Amerika Birleşik Devletleri'nden "sınır dışı edilebilir" konumuna gelir. Rubin v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 583 U.S. ___ (2018) (Slip Opinion at 10 ) (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted); see also Matter of Song, 27 I&N Dec. 488, 492 (BIA 2018) ("Because the language of both the statute and the regulations is plain and unambiguous, we are bound to follow it."); Matter of Figueroa, 25 I&N Dec. 596 , 598 (BIA 2011) ("When interpreting statutes and regulations, we look first to the plain meaning of the language and are required to give effect to unambiguously expressed intent. Executive intent is presumed to be expressed by the ordinary meaning of the words used. We also construe a statute or regulation to give effect to all of its provisions.") (citations omitted); Lamie v. United States Trustee, 540 U.S. 526, 534 (2004); TRW Inc. v. Andrews, 534 U.S. 19 , 31 (2001) ("It is a cardinal principle of statutory construction that a statute ought, upon the whole, to be so construed that, if it can be prevented, no clause, sentence, or word shall be superfluous, void, or insignificant.") (internal quotation marks omitted); United States v. Menasche, 348 U.S. 528 , 538-539 (1955) ("It is our duty to give effect, if possible, to every clause and word of a statute." (internal quotation marks omitted); NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp., 301 U.S. 1, 30 (1937) ("The cardinal principle of statutory construction is to save and not to destroy. We have repeatedly held that as between two possible interpretations of a statute, by one of which it would be unconstitutional and by the other valid, our plain duty is to adopt that which will save the act. Even to avoid a serious doubt the rule is the same."). NLRB v. SW General, Inc., 580 U.S. ___, ___, [https://casetext.com/case/natl-labor-relations-bd-v-sw-gen-inc#p939 137 S.Ct. 929], 939 (2017) ("The ordinary meaning of 'notwithstanding' is 'in spite of,' or 'without prevention or obstruction from or by.' In statutes, the [notwithstanding any other provision of law] 'shows which provision prevails in the event of a clash.'"); In re JMC Telecom LLC, 416 B.R. 738 , 743 (C.D. Cal. 2009) (explaining that "the phrase 'notwithstanding any other provision of law' expresses the legislative intent to override all contrary statutory and decisional law.") (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted) (emphasis added); see also In re Partida, 862 F.3d 909 , 912 (9th Cir. 2017) ("That is the function and purpose of the 'notwithstanding' clause."); Drakes Bay Oyster Co. v. Jewell, 747 F.3d 1073 , 1083 (9th Cir. 2014) ("As a general matter, 'notwithstanding' clauses nullify conflicting provisions of law."); Jones v. United States, No. 08-645C, p.4-5 (Fed. Cl. September 14, 2009); Kucana v. Holder, 558 U.S. 233 , 238-39 n.1 (2010); Cisneros v. Alpine Ridge Group, 508 U.S. 10 , 18 (1993) (collecting court cases).