Counting parents' residency time
Holder v. Carlos Martinez Gutierrez
In brief
The Supreme Court overturned the Ninth Circuit and sent the case back, while allowing the immigration board to reject counting a parent's years toward an applicant's own time requirements.
- Where it stands
- Decided
Decided 9-0 · May 21, 2012 · Opinion by Justice Kagan
- What it’s about
- The Supreme Court overturned the Ninth Circuit’s ruling that Carlos Martinez Gutierrez could count a parent’s time as a permanent resident and living in the United States toward his own eligibility to avoid removal.
- Who it affects
- The ruling allows the immigration board to require applicants like Gutierrez to meet the time limits themselves, rather than count a parent's years.
Summary: written with AI from the case record.
What it's about
It decided the immigration board could reasonably require him to meet the five-year permanent-resident and seven-year U.S.-residence requirements himself, and sent the case back to the lower court (remanded).
Federal law allows some immigrants facing deportation to seek cancellation of removal if they meet time-based eligibility rules.
Question presented
1. Can a parent's years of lawful permanent resident status be applied to an alien who resided with that parent as an unemancipated minor, for the purpose of satisfying 8 U.S.C. 1229b(a)(1)'s requirement that the alien seeking cancellation of removal have "been an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence for not less than 5 years"? 2. Can a parent's years of residence after lawful admission to the United States can be applied to an alien who resided with that parent as an unemancipated minor, for the purpose of satisfying 8 U.S.C. 1229b(a)(2)'s requirement that the alien seeking cancellation of removal have "resided in the United States continuously for 7 years after having been admitted in any status"?
What the Court decided
Holding
The BIA’s rejection of imputation is based on a permissible construction of §1229b(a). 313, reversed and remanded.
- Result
- Reversed
The Court's reasoning
The Court said the immigration board's reading of the law was allowed: it could require an applicant to meet the time rules based on the applicant's own status and time in the United States.
The vote
What's next
The case returns to the Ninth Circuit to continue under the Supreme Court's ruling.
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 - Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General v. Carlos Martinez Gutierrez
Opinion added: Gutierrez
More questions
- What were the two time limits?
- The applicant had to be a permanent resident for five years and live continuously in the United States for seven years after admission in any status.
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.