The End of the Fleuti Doctrine: Redefining the Rights of Lawful Permanent Residents Returning to the U.S.
In re Collado-Munoz, 21 I. & N. Dec. 1061 (B.I.A. 1998).
Summary of the Substance and Outcome
This case examines whether lawful permanent residents (LPRs) returning to the United States after brief trips abroad can avoid being treated as seeking admission, even if they fall under specific categories listed in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). The central issue was whether the Fleuti Doctrine, which historically protected LPRs from being classified as seeking admission for brief, casual, and innocent trips, survived the enactment of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA).
The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) held that IIRIRA Section 301(a)(13) abrogated the Fleuti Doctrine. This means that LPRs who meet any of the six criteria under INA Section 101(a)(13)(C)—such as committing certain crimes or staying abroad for over 180 days—must now be treated as seeking admission, regardless of whether their trip was brief or casual. The case was remanded for further proceedings to determine whether the respondent, who had been convicted of a crime decades earlier, was inadmissible under the new standards.
Facts
- The respondent, an LPR for over 25 years, returned to the U.S. after a two-week trip to the Dominican Republic.
- Immigration authorities charged him with inadmissibility under INA Section 212(a)(2) based on a 1974 conviction for sexual abuse of a minor.
- The Immigration Judge terminated the removal proceedings, applying the Fleuti Doctrine, arguing that the respondent’s trip was brief, casual, and innocent.
- The government appealed, asserting that the respondent was seeking admission under the revised INA standards.
Analysis
Legal Background
- Before IIRIRA, the Fleuti Doctrine allowed LPRs to avoid being treated as seeking admission if their trips abroad were brief, casual, and innocent.
- IIRIRA replaced the concept of “entry” with “admission” and specified conditions under which LPRs must be treated as seeking admission, including committing crimes listed in INA Section 212(a)(2).
BIA’s Decision
- The BIA ruled that the revised INA eliminated the Fleuti Doctrine, creating a clear standard where LPRs meeting any of the six criteria in INA Section 101(a)(13)(C) are deemed to be seeking admission.
- The BIA vacated the Immigration Judge’s decision, remanding the case to determine whether the respondent’s conviction rendered him inadmissible.
Key Points from the Dissent
- Board Member Rosenberg argued that the statute should not automatically classify LPRs in the six categories as seeking admission. Instead, she advocated for a case-by-case assessment of the nature and circumstances of the trip.
Conclusion
The BIA’s decision marked a significant shift in immigration law, restricting the protections previously available to LPRs under the Fleuti Doctrine. LPRs returning from abroad must now navigate a stricter framework, where past convictions or prolonged absences can result in inadmissibility. The case underscores the importance of understanding how legislative changes, like IIRIRA, reshape longstanding legal doctrines and impact individuals’ rights.
Key Takeaway for Readers with Limited Knowledge
This case illustrates how statutory changes in immigration law can redefine the legal landscape, emphasizing the need for LPRs to be cautious about travel and potential legal consequences.
Let’s Get Started
Your legal challenges deserve personalized attention and innovative solutions. Contact Oware Justice Advocates PC today for a consultation and take the first step toward resolution and peace of mind.
355 South Teller Street, Suite 204,
Lakewood, CO 80226
(Visits to the office are strictly by appointment only)
303-514-6589
