The U.S. Supreme Court today agreed to hear a case asking whether the IIRIRA definition of “admission,” INA § 101(a)(13)(C)(v), applies to individuals who were convicted prior to IIRIRA’s enactment then left the United States after enactment. Vartelas v. Holder, No. 10-1211 (U.S. Sept. 27, 2011).
The question presented, as described in the Solicitor General’s Brief in Opposition, states:
In 1996, Congress amended 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(13) to specify that those aliens seeking “admission” to the United States include lawful permanent resident aliens who are returning to the United States from travel abroad and who “ha[ve] committed an offense identified in [8 U.S.C.] 1182(a)(2).” 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(13)(C)(v). The question
presented is as follows:
Whether the definition of “admission” in 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(13)(C), as amended in 1996, is applicable to a lawful permanent resident alien who committed an offense identified in 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(2) (and was convicted of that offense upon a guilty plea) before 1996 and then, in 2003, departed from and returned to the United States.
This is an appeal of a Second Circuit decision.
The petitioner, a Greek citizen who became and LPR in 1989, was deemed inadmissible upon trying to return to the United States from a one-week trip abroad. He was charged as inadmissible for having been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude in 1994 (federal conspiracy to make or possess a counterfeit security for which he was sentenced to four months imprisonment and two years of probation).
The Court is unlikely to schedule oral argument for some time.