U.S. Permanent Resident Status
A U.S. Permanent Resident Status is an permanent resident immigrant status for the U.S..
- AKA: Green Card Status.
- Context:
- It can be evidenced by possession of a U.S. Permanent Residence Card.
- …
- Counter-Example(s):
- See: Employment Authorization Document, Permanent Residence (United States), Injunction, Jurisdiction.
References
2019
- (Wikipedia, 2019) ⇒ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_card Retrieved:2019-10-23.
- A green card, known officially as a Permanent Residence Card (PRC), is a document issued to immigrants under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), bestowing the rights, benefits, and privileges of permanently residing in the United States.[1] . Individuals with green cards are known as Lawful Permanent Residents (LPR) or green card holders. There are an estimated 13.2 million green card holders of whom 8.9 million are eligible for citizenship of the United States. Approximately 65,000 of them serve in the U.S. Armed Forces.
Green card holders are statutorily entitled to U.S. citizenship after showing by a preponderance of the evidence that they, inter alia, have continuously resided in the United States for at least five years and are persons of good moral character. Those who are younger than 18 years old automatically derive U.S. citizenship through at least one of their American parents.[2]
Every lawful permanent resident is issued by the U.S. government a "permanent resident card," which is commonly known as a "green card" because of its historical greenish color. It was formerly called "alien registration card" or "alien registration receipt card."[3] The permanent resident card serves as proof that its holder is a legal immigrant having similar constitutional rights as all other Americans.[4][5] [6] [7] [8] [9] It may be used to obtain a State ID card and/or a driver's license. Absent exceptional circumstances, immigrants who are 18 years of age or older could spend up to 30 days in jail for not carrying their green cards. [10] Green card applications are decided by the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), but in some cases an immigration judge or a member of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), acting on behalf of the U.S. Attorney General, may grant permanent residency in the course of removal proceedings. Any authorized federal judge may do the same by signing and issuing an injunction. [11] [12] An LPR could become "removable" from the United States after suffering a criminal conviction, especially if it involved a particularly serious crime or an aggravated felony "for which the term of imprisonment was completed within the previous 15 years." [13] Those who the Attorney General admitted to the United States as refugees and later adjusted their status to that of LPRs are statutorily immunized against deportation for lifetime, almost the same way like “nationals but not citizens of the United States."[14] [15]
- A green card, known officially as a Permanent Residence Card (PRC), is a document issued to immigrants under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), bestowing the rights, benefits, and privileges of permanently residing in the United States.[1] . Individuals with green cards are known as Lawful Permanent Residents (LPR) or green card holders. There are an estimated 13.2 million green card holders of whom 8.9 million are eligible for citizenship of the United States. Approximately 65,000 of them serve in the U.S. Armed Forces.
- ↑ ("The term 'lawfully admitted for permanent residence' means the status of having been lawfully accorded the privilege of residing permanently in the United States as an immigrant in accordance with the immigration laws, such status not having changed.").
- ↑ Khalid v. Sessions, 904 F.3d 129, 131 (2d Cir. 2018) (case involving a U.S. citizen in removal proceedings); Jaen v. Sessions, 899 F.3d 182, 190 (2d Cir. 2018) (same); Anderson v. Holder, 673 F.3d 1089, 1092 (9th Cir. 2012) (same); Dent v. Sessions, 900 F.3d 1075, 1080 (9th Cir. 2018) ("An individual has third-party standing when [(1)] the party asserting the right has a close relationship with the person who possesses the right [and (2)] there is a hindrance to the possessor's ability to protect his own interests.") (quoting Sessions v. Morales-Santana, 582 U.S. ___, ___, 137 S.Ct. 1678, 1689 (2017)) (internal quotation marks omitted); Yith v. Nielsen, 881 F.3d 1155, 1159 (9th Cir. 2018); Gonzalez-Alarcon v. Macias, 884 F.3d 1266, 1270 (10th Cir. 2018); Hammond v. Sessions, No. 16-3013, p.2-3 (2d Cir. Jan. 29, 2018) (summary order).
- ↑ Campos v. United States, 888 F.3d 724, 732 (5th Cir. 2018).
- ↑ Cite error: Invalid
<ref>tag; no text was provided for refs namedsection 1101(a)(13)(C)(v) - ↑ (emphasis added).
- ↑ et seq.; United States v. Lanier, 520 U.S. 259, 264 (1997) ("Section 242 is a Reconstruction Era civil rights statute making it criminal to act (1) 'willfully' and (2) under color of law (3) to deprive a person of rights protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States."); United States v. Acosta, 470 F.3d 132, 136 (2d Cir. 2006) (holding that 18 U.S.C. §§ 241 and 242 are "crimes of violence"); see also et seq.; Rodriguez v. Swartz, 899 F.3d 719 (9th Cir. 2018) ("A U.S. Border Patrol agent standing on American soil shot and killed a teenage Mexican citizen who was walking down a street in Mexico."); Ziglar v. Abbasi, (mistreating immigration detainees); Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730, 736-37 (2002) (mistreating prisoners).
- ↑ See also Zuniga-Perez v. Sessions, 897 F.3d 114, 122 (2d Cir. 2018) ("The Constitution protects both citizens and non‐citizens.") (emphasis added).
- ↑ (emphasis added).
- ↑ (emphasis added).
- ↑ INA § 264(e), ("Personal possession of registration or receipt card; penalties"); see also Davila v. United States, 247 F.Supp.3d 650, 656 (W.D. Pa. 2017) (lawsuit involving a U.S. citizen who was mistakenly arrested and detained by the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)).
- ↑ See generally Agor v. Sessions, No. 17‐3231 (2d Cir. Sept. 26, 2018) ("Although federal courts are barred from reviewing a discretionary denial of an adjustment application, we retain jurisdiction to review an applicantʹs eligibility to adjust.") (summary order); Alimbaev v. Att'y, 872 F.3d 188, 194 (3d Cir. 2017) (same); Bonilla v. Lynch, 840 F.3d 575, 581-82 (9th Cir. 2016) (same).
- ↑ ("Limit on injunctive relief'); Jennings v. Rodriguez, 583 U.S. ___, ___, 138 S.Ct. 830, 851 (2018); Wheaton College v. Burwell, 134 S.Ct. 2806, 2810-11 (2014) ("Under our precedents, an injunction is appropriate only if (1) it is necessary or appropriate in aid of our jurisdiction, and (2) the legal rights at issue are indisputably clear.") (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted); Lux v. Rodrigues, 561 U.S. 1306, 1308 (2010); Correctional Services Corp. v. Malesko, 534 U.S. 61, 74 (2001) (stating that “injunctive relief has long been recognized as the proper means for preventing entities from acting unconstitutionally."); Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 443 (2009) (Justice Alito dissenting with Justice Thomas); see also Alli v. Decker, 650 F.3d 1007, 1010-11 (3d Cir. 2011); Andreiu v. Ashcroft, 253 F.3d 477, 482-85 (9th Cir. 2001) (en banc).
- ↑ Rubin v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 583 U.S. ___ (2018) (Slip Opinion at 10) (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted); see also Matter of Song, 27 I&N Dec. 488, 492 (BIA 2018) ("Because the language of both the statute and the regulations is plain and unambiguous, we are bound to follow it."); Matter of Figueroa, 25 I&N Dec. 596, 598 (BIA 2011) ("When interpreting statutes and regulations, we look first to the plain meaning of the language and are required to give effect to unambiguously expressed intent. Executive intent is presumed to be expressed by the ordinary meaning of the words used. We also construe a statute or regulation to give effect to all of its provisions.") (citations omitted); Lamie v. United States Trustee, 540 U.S. 526, 534 (2004); TRW Inc. v. Andrews, 534 U.S. 19, 31 (2001) ("It is a cardinal principle of statutory construction that a statute ought, upon the whole, to be so construed that, if it can be prevented, no clause, sentence, or word shall be superfluous, void, or insignificant.") (internal quotation marks omitted); United States v. Menasche, 348 U.S. 528, 538-539 (1955) ("It is our duty to give effect, if possible, to every clause and word of a statute." (internal quotation marks omitted); NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp., 301 U.S. 1, 30 (1937) ("The cardinal principle of statutory construction is to save and not to destroy. We have repeatedly held that as between two possible interpretations of a statute, by one of which it would be unconstitutional and by the other valid, our plain duty is to adopt that which will save the act. Even to avoid a serious doubt the rule is the same.").
- ↑ (emphasis added); see also ("Nationals but not citizens...."); ("Denial of rights and privileges as national"); (a)(7) ("National refers to any individual who meets the requirements described in 8 U.S.C. 1408.").
- ↑ Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez, 372 U.S. 144, 160 (1963) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); see also Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387, 395 (2012) ("Perceived mistreatment of aliens in the United States may lead to harmful reciprocal treatment of American citizens abroad.").