It is helpful to understand the context of a law or regulation as it relates to other statutes and regulations in a particular area of law. This page provides an overview of the most relevant sources of immigration law, and how they relate to each other, as well as how laws particularly applicable to helping trafficking victims obtain waivers for visas fit within the broader immigration law system. Understanding a particular law in its context can prevent confusion, facilitate locating other related laws, ensure relevant laws are not over-looked, etc. For more specific laws, please see the tabs for particular grounds of inadmissibility.
While this guide focuses on issues involving immigration relief for individuals with grounds of inadmissibility, and does not attempt to cover all relevant aspects of immigration law, the following cases might be helpful background reading to illustrate some basic principles and definitions. The selected cases are meant to be illustrative only, and were selected based mainly on recency of the decision and clarity of the example (not necessarily highest authority).
U.S. v. Hernandez-Arias, 745 F.3d 1275 (9th Cir. 2013) (explaining what "admitted" means under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(13)(A)).
Lanier v. U.S. Atty Gen., 631 F.3d 1363 (11th Cir. 2011) (explaining what "admitted" means under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(13)(A)).
Theck v. Warden, I.N.S., 22 F.Supp.2d 1117 (C.D. Ca. 1998) (explaining definitions of "deportation" and "exclusion" under 8 U.S.C. §§ 1182, 1252).
U.S. ex rel. Volpe v. Smith, 289 U.S. 422 (1933) (holding Congress has power to impose terms and conditions on which aliens may enter or remain in the U.S.).
Torres-Tristan v. Holder, 656 F.3d 653 (7th Cir. 2011) (holding individuals who meet the statutory requirements for a visa are still not entitled to the visa as a matter of right).
U.S. v. Hansl, 364 F.Supp.2d 966 (S.D. Iowa 2005) (holding a visa granted by mistake does not give its recipient any rights to remain in the U.S.).
Diallo v. Reno, 61 F.Supp.2d 1361 (N.D. Georgia 1999) (holding that just filing a visa does not guarantee a visa will be granted or that the alien will receive any rights to enter or remain in the U.S.).
Vitale v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, 643 F.2d 579 (7th Cir. 1972) (holding a visa does not entitle an alien to enter U.S. if the alien if found inadmissible on arrival).
U.S. v. Rodriguez, 182 F.Supp. 479 (S.D. Ca. 1960) (explaining the definitions of, and distinctions between, a "passport" and a "visa").
Villars v. Kubiatowski, 2014 WL 1795631 (N.D. Ill. 2014). (explaining how U-visas are for victims of qualifying crimes, not for any witnesses, under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(U) and 8 C.F.R. § 214.14(c)(2)(i)).
Villegas v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville, 907 F.Supp.2d 907 (M.D. Tenn. 2012) (holding under Trafficking Victims Protection Act court would grant an alien's application for a U-visa certification).
Youssefi v. Renaud, 794 F.Supp.2d 585 (D. Md. 2011) (holding USCIS has discretion to excuse alien applicants for change in non-immigrant status when their prior status was valid at the time of filing but subsequently expired).
Ordonez Orosco v. Napolitano, 598 F.3d 222 (5th Cir. 2010) (holding decision not to issue law enforcement certification for alien as victim of qualifying criminal activity for a U-visa was discretionary).
Catholic Charities CYO v. Chertoff, 622 F.Supp.2d 865 (N.D. Ca. 2008) (holding no due process right to a U-visa to eligible persons because the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act is discretionary and not a protected property or liberty interest).
U.S. v. Darsan, 811 F.Supp. 119 (W.D. N. Y. 1993) (holding applicants for non-immigrant status bear burden of proof their asserted non-immigrant status is bona fide).
Ascencio-Rodriguez v. Holder, 595 F.3d 105 (2d Cir. 2010) (holding aliens who are detained at the border are not entitled to the same protections as aliens who have been admitted into the U.S.).
Hall v. Attorney General of U.S., 283 Fed. Appx. 26 (3d Cir. 2008); Ruiz v. Mukasey, 269 Fed. Appx. 616 (9th Cir. 2007) (holding alien who was formerly a lawful resident but departed the U.S. and returned illegally was properly treated as inadmissible rather than removable).
Fiallo v. Bell, 430 U.S. 787 (1977) (holding non-resident aliens do not have any constitutional right to enter the U.S. or receive a visa).
Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U.S. 753 (1972) (holding non-resident aliens do not have any constitutional right to enter the U.S. or receive a visa).
Lapania v. Williams, 232 U.S. 78 (1914) (holding statutory exclusions of particular classes of aliens are applicable to both immigrants and non-immigrants, and apply to all aliens in general except those expressly or impliedly exempted by the statute).
