Opinion ID: 725554
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: What is the INS's Construction?

Text: 37 The INS argues that § 1255a(a)(3)(B) is not intended to act as a border-crossing mechanism. In practice, however, the INS developed the advance parole regulations to monitor legalization applicants' departure from and readmission into this country. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 245a.2(m)(1) & (n)(2). From what source does the INS derive its authority to permit legalization applicants to cross and re-cross the border? It is, of course, § 1255a(a)(3)(B)'s brief, casual, and innocent language. 38 8 C.F.R. § 245a.2(l) provides guidance on § 1255a(a)(3)'s continuous physical presence requirement. Subsection (2) of that regulation provides in pertinent part: A brief, casual and innocent absence means a departure authorized by the Service (advance parole). 8 C.F.R. § 245a.2(l)(2) (emphasis added). This regulation unambiguously and clearly reveals that the INS interprets the brief, casual, and innocent language of § 1255a(a)(3)(B) as a border-crossing mechanism. The very existence of the contested regulation belies the INS's argument. Through the authority derived from subsection (B), the INS created admission procedures entitling legalization applicants to be readmitted to the country. Thus, contrary to its argument, the INS has construed subsection (B) as a border-crossing mechanism. 39