Green card travel after conviction
Vartelas v. Holder
In brief
The Supreme Court overturned the Second Circuit’s ruling and sent the case back, saying the law in force when Vartelas was convicted governs the effect of his brief trip.
- Where it stands
- Decided
Decided 6-3 · March 28, 2012 · Opinion by Justice Ginsburg
- What it’s about
- Panagis Vartelas, a green-card holder who pleaded guilty to a crime before a 1996 immigration law took effect, challenged how that law affected his permanent-resident status after a later brief trip abroad.
- Who it affects
- Vartelas’s brief trip must be judged under the immigration law in force when he was convicted, not the 1996 law.
Summary: written with AI from the case record.
What it's about
The Supreme Court ruled that the effect of his trip was governed by the law in force when he pleaded guilty, overturned the Second Circuit’s ruling, and sent the case back to that court (remanded).
The case asked whether a 1996 immigration rule could govern travel after it took effect when the resident’s conviction happened earlier.
Question presented
Can 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(13)(C)(v) be applied retroactively to a Lawful Permanent Resident who pleads guilty to a crime of moral turpitude prior to the effective date of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act?
What the Court decided
Holding
The impact of Vartelas’ brief travel abroad on his permanent resident status is determined not by IIRIRA, but by the legal regime in force at the time of his conviction. 620 F. 3d 108, reversed and remanded.
- Result
- Reversed
The vote
From the opinions
““Under the proper approach to determining a statute’s temporal application, the answer is yes.””
What's next
The Second Circuit will take up the case again and apply the law in force when Vartelas was convicted.
Documents
Opinions
Audio
Docket activity
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Case Briefing
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Impact Analysis
AI analysis generated: Opinion Summary
Show 5 moreShow fewer
AI analysis generated: Decision Record
Case data updated: summary, question_presented, generation_metadata
Case data updated: question_presented, extraction_metadata
Audio Recording added: Oral Arguments - Vartelas
Opinion added: Vartelas
More questions
- What did the dissent argue about the 1996 law?
- Justice Scalia argued that it applied to permanent residents who committed covered crimes before 1996 but traveled abroad after the law took effect.
Sources
Primary materials plus reporting. Best-effort analysis: this explainer relies on a mix of primary materials and trusted secondary sources. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.