Immigration & Naturalization Service v. Hector

Background

Virginia Hector is a woman from Dominica who entered the United States as a visitor in 1975 and stayed after her permission expired. One of her four children lives with her in the United States. In 1983 two of her nieces, U.S. citizens aged ten and eleven, came to live with her to attend school. The Immigration and Naturalization Service began deportation proceedings in 1983. Hector admitted she could be deported but applied to cancel the deportation under a law that allows cancellation if an immigrant has lived in the United States continuously for seven years, shows good character, and would cause extreme hardship to the immigrant or to the immigrant’s spouse, parent, or child who is a U.S. citizen or lawful resident.

Reasoning

The main question was whether immigration officials must also consider hardship to other relatives who are not a spouse, parent, or a child as the law defines those terms. The Court said no and reversed the appeals court. It held that the statute’s plain words limit relief to the specific relatives Congress named. The opinion stressed that Congress has repeatedly defined “child” in detail and that courts may not adopt a broader, functional parent-child test in place of Congress’s definitions.

Real world impact

This ruling means people facing deportation cannot win cancellation based on hardship to nieces or similarly related loved ones who are not covered by the statute’s strict definitions. Immigration officials must apply Congress’s listed categories when judging extreme hardship. The Court also noted that Congress, not the courts, can change who counts as a covered relative and that recent 1986 legislation might offer other forms of relief for some individuals.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Marshall dissented from the summary disposition, objecting that the case was decided without giving the parties notice or the chance to brief and argue the full merits.