Immigration & Naturalization Service v. Phinpathya

Background

A woman from Thailand and her husband entered the United States on student visas in the late 1960s and remained after their visas expired. The Immigration and Naturalization Service began deportation proceedings in 1977. The woman admitted she left the United States for about three months in 1974 and returned after obtaining a new visa by misrepresenting her status. She applied for suspension of deportation, which requires seven years of continuous physical presence under the immigration statute.

Reasoning

The central question was whether a temporary absence breaks the statutory seven‑year “continuous physical presence” needed for suspension of deportation. The Court held that the statute’s plain words and legislative history require the seven years to be continuous as written. The Court rejected the Ninth Circuit’s more flexible “totality of the circumstances” approach and declined to extend the narrow rule from an unrelated case about lawful residents. It therefore reversed the Court of Appeals and found that the unexplained three‑month absence disqualified the woman from eligibility.

Real world impact

The decision means immigrants seeking this form of relief must generally show an uninterrupted seven years in the United States. Short trips abroad, especially unexplained ones or trips tied to misrepresentation, can disqualify applicants. The opinion also limits the agency’s ability to relax the seven‑year rule; other factual issues in the case, such as good moral character and extreme hardship, were not decided here and remain for later resolution.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Brennan concurred in the judgment but emphasized that Congress likely did not intend a strictly literal rule and that temporary, innocent absences could be treated more flexibly. He would not join the Court’s broad textual reasoning.