Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/17-459_1o13.pdf
Page Number: 31

4 

PEREIRA v. SESSIONS 

ALITO, J., dissenting 

Corp.  v.  Riverkeeper,  Inc.,  556  U. S.  208,  218  (2009). 
Moreover,  deference  to  the  Government’s  interpretation 
“is  especially  appropriate  in  the  immigration  context”
because  of  the  potential 
implications. 
Aguirre-Aguirre,  supra,  at  425.    In  light  of  the  relevant 
text,  context,  statutory  history,  and  statutory  purpose,
there is no doubt that  the Government’s interpretation  of
the stop-time rule is indeed permissible under Chevron. 

foreign-policy 

B 
By  its  terms,  the  stop-time  rule  is  consistent  with  the
Government’s interpretation.  As noted, the stop-time rule 
provides that “any period of . . . continuous physical pres-
ence in the United States shall be deemed to end . . . when 
the alien is served a notice to appear under section 1229(a) 
of  this  title.”  §1229b(d)(1).    A  degree  of  ambiguity  arises 
from Congress’s use of the word “under,” for as the Court 
recognizes, “ ‘[t]he word “under” is [a] chameleon,’ ” ante, at 
15,  having  “ ‘many  dictionary  definitions’ ”  and  no  “uni-
form,  consistent  meaning,”  Kirtsaeng  v.  John  Wiley  & 
Sons,  Inc.,  568  U. S.  519,  531  (2013).    Everyone  agrees,
however,  that  “under”  is  often  used  to  mean  “authorized 
by.”  See,  e.g.,  Webster’s  New  World  College  Dictionary
1453  (3d  ed.  1997)  (“authorized  . . .  by”);  American  Herit-
age Dictionary 1945 (3d ed. 1992) (“With the authorization
of ”);  see  also  Brief  for  Respondent  24  (agreeing  that  “un-
der” can mean “subject to,” “governed by,” or “issued under
the  authority  of”);  Brief  for  Petitioner  28.    And  when  the 
term is used in this way, it does not necessarily mean that
the  act  done  pursuant  to  that  authorization  was  done  in
strict compliance with the terms of the authorization.  For 
example, one might refer to a litigant’s disclosure “under” 
Rule 26(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure even if 
that  disclosure  did  not  comply  with  Rule  26(a)  in  every 
respect.  Or  one  might  refer  to  regulations  promulgated
“under” a statute even if a court later found those regula-