Source: http://openjurist.org/479/us/85/immigration-and-naturalization-service-v-hector
Timestamp: 2014-09-22 18:28:55
Document Index: 225219970

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 244', '§ 1254', '§ 244', '§ 244', '§ 101', '§ 1101']

479 US 85 Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Hector | OpenJurist
479 U.S. 85 - Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Hector	Home479 us 85 immigration and naturalization service v. hector
479 US 85 Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Hector 479 U.S. 85
107 S.Ct. 379
93 L.Ed.2d 326
IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICEv.Virginia HECTOR.
No. 86-21.
The Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) instituted deportation proceedings against Hector in July 1983. She conceded deportability, but applied for suspension of deportation pursuant to § 244(a)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (Act), 66 Stat. 214, as amended, 8 U.S.C. § 1254(a)(1). That section authorizes the Attorney General, in his discretion, to suspend deportation of an illegal alien, and to adjust the alien's status to that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence, if the deportable alien
An Immigration Judge and the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) found that Hector satisfied the first two statutory elements—continuous physical residence and good moral character but that she could not demonstrate extreme hardship to herself, or to her "spouse, parent, or child." With respect to her nieces, the Board determined that, as a factual matter, Hector's separation from them would not constitute extreme hardship to herself;1 as a legal matter, the Board concluded that a niece is not a "child" within the meaning of § 244(a)(1).
The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit granted Hector's petition for review and remanded the case to the Board. 782 F.2d 1028 (1986). The court held that the Board had erred in not giving sufficient consideration to whether Hector's relationship with her nieces was the functional equivalent of a parent-child relationship. The court thus instructed the Board to ascertain whether there was a parental-type relationship, and, if so, to determine whether Hector's nieces would experience extreme hardship as a result of her deportation.2
In so holding, the court relied on its earlier decision in Tovar v. INS, 612 F.2d 794 (1980), which held that the term "child" as used in § 244(a)(1) includes individuals who do not fit within the statutory definition of "child" set out in § 101(b)(1), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(b)(1), if their relationship with the deportable alien closely resembles that of a parent and child.3