User:Hoyumpae/sandbox

Introduction

Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Phinpathya, 464 U.S. 183 (1984), was a case that established that one must have a “continuous physical presence” in the United States while they are applying for a visa or eventual citizenship status. This decision followed sweeping immigration policy changes from the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 (also known as the Hart-Cellar Act) in the United States and impacted the new waves in immigration. By defining “continuous physical presence” this case helped solidify the rules one must follow from the Immigration and Nationality Act to obtain a visa or citizenship rights. Yet, this case also signaled a turning point in the status of immigrants and upholding statutes from the Constitution in rulings. Finally, this case also set the precedent for other immigration and deportation cases.

Background

In 1965, as part of the immigration policy changes in the United States, the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965  passed. The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 got rid of the quotas system in the United States and shifted the immigration system to “preferences.” Along with that, the Immigration and Nationality Act also gives the authority to the Attorney General to suspend the deportation of an immigrant if there is proof that they have been physically present in the United States for more than seven years, has proven that they have good morals and character and that their deportation would impose hardships on their family members. The implications of the Immigration and Nationality Act influenced the ruling of Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Phinpathya, and the decision from Phinpathya affected immigration policy and deportation status today.

In 1969, Padrungsi Phinpathya, an immigrant from Thailand, was granted a non-immigrant student visa along with her husband, who entered the United States in 1968, to stay in the country until 1971. In 1977, it was discovered by the Immigration and Naturalization Services (INS) that the Phinpathyas did not renew their visas, so they were illegally in the country for six years. Yet, during this period, Phinpathya returned to Thailand in 1974 for three months for her sick mother and got a non-immigrant visa as the wife of a foreign student from the United States Consulate. Although a visa was obtained, because her husband was here illegally, it was also invalid. So, when both Phinpathya and her husband applied for suspensions so they would not deported, Phinpathya was denied because she was not in the United States for more than seven years consecutively.

Decision

In a 9-0 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the section regarding physical presence in the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 must be interpreted to its literal meaning. Referring to section 244(a)(1) 4 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, Sandra Day O’Connor dissents that there must be a strict application of this rule and that there were no absences within this period whatsoever. These requirements are meant to be applied throughout the process and do not have the flexibility to be interpreted any other way. By taking the language for what it was, this case signaled the Supreme Court established standards for staying in the country or the circumstances that one would deem necessary to leave.

This ruling is the first example of the language surrounding coming and going into the United States being interpreted literally. Hence, many believe that the Supreme Court took a "literalist statutory interpretation" for this case. Before this ruling, it was believed that as long as there was proper documentation, those applying for a visa or a stay in the United States could leave if necessary. Justice William J. Brennan, Jr. wrote a concurring opinion that the language is not meant to be unreasonable for those in this process, but rather, holding firm so the system is not abused. Yet, because the Court adheres to the statute and sticks to the language of the Constitution to what was stated, there must be extreme circumstances for any leave of absence from the United States while undergoing the process for any sort of permanent stay.

Significance

This case is significant because it showed the impacts of the Immigration and Nationality Act on the United States and on those who wanted to come to the country. It emphasized the importance of following the necessary rules by the government to obtain a visa or citizenship or else one would have to accept being deported. The importance of this ruling also set the standard for future deportation cases that came before the Court because of the way they interpreted the language in the Constitution. Along with this, it also showed that just because Phinpathaya’s husband was able to get a visa, does not mean that she is automatically granted one as well. Thus, one small mishap can derail one’s plans to get a visa, so one must follow the necessary steps outlined in the government through the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965.