Enter to open, tab to navigate, enter to select
LPR Not "Lawfully Admitted for Permanent Residence" for Naturalization Even If Admitted by USCIS Mistake: Sixth Circuit
Practical Law Legal Update w-005-3034 (Approx. 4 pages)
LPR Not "Lawfully Admitted for Permanent Residence" for Naturalization Even If Admitted by USCIS Mistake: Sixth Circuit
by Practical Law Labor & Employment
| Law stated as of 10 Jan 2017 • USA (National/Federal) |
In Turfah v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that an individual with lawful permanent resident (LPR) status (a green card) was ineligible for naturalization as a US citizen because he was not "lawfully admitted for permanent residence" under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), having been mistakenly admitted to the US as an LPR by USCIS.
On January 6, 2017, in Turfah v. United States Citizenship & Immigration Servs., the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that an individual with lawful permanent resident (LPR) status (a green card) was not "lawfully admitted for permanent residence" under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) because he was admitted to the US as an LPR due to a mistake by USCIS. Therefore, the Sixth Circuit found that the LPR was ineligible for naturalization as a US citizen. The Sixth Circuit's interpretation of the INA's "lawfully admitted for permanent residence" provision sided with decisions by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) and other US circuit courts holding that a foreign national is not lawfully admitted if he gains LPR status due to a government mistake, even if the foreign national did not commit any fraud in obtaining that status. ( (6th Cir. Jan. 6, 2017).)
Background
Kamal Turfah, a Lebanese citizen, entered the US in September 1995 and obtained LPR status. Although Turfah traveled on a visa that allowed him to enter the US as an unmarried child under the age of 21 who was accompanying or following to join his father, the principal immigration applicant, immigration authorities mistakenly admitted Turfah before his father arrived in the US.
In November 2012, USCIS denied Turfah's application for naturalization, determining that he was ineligible for naturalization because he was not "lawfully admitted" for LPR status, having entered the US before his father, and therefore before he was legally permitted to acquire LPR status.
Turfah filed a petition in US district court seeking review of USCIS's determination. The district court granted summary judgment to USCIS. Turfah appealed.
Outcome
The Sixth Circuit:
- Affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to USCIS.
- Held that Turfah was ineligible for naturalization because:
- despite his LPR status, Turfah was not "lawfully admitted for permanent residence" due to USCIS mistakenly admitting him to the US; and
- a foreign national is not lawfully admitted if he gains LPR status due to a government mistake, even if the foreign national did not commit any fraud in obtaining that status.
The Sixth Circuit noted that:
- An applicant for naturalization must establish, among other things, that he has been "lawfully admitted for permanent residence" (INA §§ 316(a) and 318 (8 U.S.C. §§ 1427(a) and 1429)).
- The INA does not define the term "lawfully admitted for permanent residence" other than as having the privilege of residing in the US "in accordance with the immigration laws" (INA § 101(a)(2) (8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(2))).
- In In re Koloamatangi, the BIA held that:
- a foreign national who obtained his LPR status through marriage fraud was not "lawfully admitted for permanent residence" and therefore was ineligible for naturalization;
- being "lawfully admitted for permanent residence" requires substantive compliance with legal requirement and is not merely a procedural formality; and
- an individual with LPR status was not necessarily admitted lawfully if he obtained LPR status through fraud or if he was "otherwise not…entitled" to have that status.
(22 I & N. Dec. 548 (BIA 2003).) - Every US circuit court that has addressed the lawful admission requirement has followed the BIA's interpretation of the lawful admission requirement from In re Koloamatangi, holding that Koloamatangi's "otherwise not been entitled" language means that a foreign national who gained LPR status due to a government mistake was not lawfully admitted, even if the person gained LPR status without committing any fraud (see Injeti v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Servs., 737 F.3d 311, 315-16 (4th Cir. 2013); Gallimore v. U.S. Att'y Gen., 619 F.3d 216, 224-25 (3d Cir. 2010); Estrada-Ramos v. Holder, 611 F.3d 318, 321 (7th Cir. 2010); Kyong Ho Shin v. Holder, 607 F.3d 1213, 1216-17 (9th Cir. 2010); Walker v. Holder, 589 F.3d 12, 19-20 (1st Cir. 2009); De La Rosa v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec., 489 F.3d 551, 554-55 (2d Cir. 2007); Savoury v. U.S. Att'y Gen., 449 F.3d 1307, 1313 (11th Cir. 2006); Arellano-Garcia v. Gonzales, 429 F.3d 1183, 1186-87 (8th Cir. 2005)).
The Sixth Circuit determined that the BIA's interpretation of the lawful admission requirement and its acceptance by the other circuit courts was consistent with INA section 316(a) and section 318 because:
- The INA sections are ambiguous and do not clearly explain what it means to grant LPR status "in accordance with the immigration laws."
- The lawful admission requirement could mean that a foreign national is lawfully admitted only if either:
- the foreign national meets all substantive LPR status requirements; or
- the immigration authorities allow the foreign national to enter the US, regardless of whether the foreign national meets all of the substantive LPR status requirements..
- BIA's interpretation (that lawful admission depends on the foreign national meeting all of the substantive LPR status requirements) was reasonable and warranted deference under Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc. (467 U.S. 837, 842-43 (1984)).
The Sixth Circuit found that Turfah was not lawfully admitted for permanent residence because:
- When he was admitted to the US in 1995, he did not accompany his father or follow his father into the US.
- Turfah's admission to the US violated the regulation defining the statutory term "accompanying" from section 203(d) of the INA (8 U.S.C. § 1153(d)) (see 22 C.F.R. § 40.1(a)(2)).
- The regulation was fully consistent with the statute.
Practical Implications
The Sixth Circuit's decision in Turfah joins other circuits in adopting the BIA's interpretation of the lawful admission requirement. A foreign national must meet all of the substantive LPR status requirements, and it is not enough to simply have formal LPR status. The fact that individuals like Turfah are admitted to the US due to a government mistake and did not commit any fraud does not rescue their application for naturalization.