Supreme Court rules against immigrants over visa eligibility

WASHINGTON Mon Jun 9, 2014 12:11pm EDT

The exterior of the U.S. Supreme Court is seen in Washington March 5, 2014.  REUTERS/Gary Cameron

The exterior of the U.S. Supreme Court is seen in Washington March 5, 2014.

Credit: Reuters/Gary Cameron

Related Topics

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Monday that children waiting with their parents for immigration visas must go to the back of the line once they reach the age of 21.

The court was divided 5-4 in deciding that only in limited circumstances does federal immigration law allow for children to retain their place in line after they become adults.

The case concerns a program that allows people who are U.S. citizens or legal residents to sponsor relatives who live overseas. People often have to wait for years for approval of their visa applications and the number of visas available is capped each year.

The litigation is unconnected to recent reports of unaccompanied children crossing the U.S. border illegally.

The court endorsed the federal government's interpretation of the law, which was that only children of permanent U.S. residents were eligible to keep their place in line once they reached the age of 21.

The case was brought by two groups of plaintiffs, including Rosalina Cuellar de Osorio, who was told in November 2005 that her family was at the front of the line to obtain visas to enter the United States from El Salvador. The family was told at the time that her son, Melvin, who had turned 21 just months earlier, would no longer be eligible.

The Supreme Court decided to hear the issue after the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in September 2012 that a broader category of visa applicants was eligible than had been argued by the administration of President Barack Obama.

The five justices in the majority were split over which legal rationale to adopt. Justice Elena Kagan, who wrote the majority opinion, was joined in full by only Justices Anthony Kennedy and Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Kagan wrote that when a statute is unclear, the court was required to defer to the interpretation offered by the government. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Antonin Scalia agreed with the judgment but offered a different rationale.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who, like Kagan, was appointed by Obama, wrote in a dissenting opinion that the law was clearer than the majority suggested and that the case should have been decided with a "commonsense approach."

The case is Scialabba v. de Osorio, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 12-930.

(Editing by Howard Goller and Bernadette Baum)

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see
Comments (8)
astroz wrote:
A clear victory for citizens and the rule of law (and common sense), but the battle is long from over. Citizens voices through platforms like are helping turn the tide but we MUST continue to apply the pressure to assure what makes sense for citizens long term interests (as opposed to the Chamber of Commerce backet puppets like Cantor). Don’t just get mad….get engaged. Call Cantor today at 202 224-3121 or use to let him hear the passionate voices of citizens. Fight or die.

Jun 09, 2014 12:48pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
theJoe wrote:
Just like Republicans, splitting up families. The GOP are really the
divide the people and conquer.

Jun 09, 2014 1:02pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
BobC2012 wrote:
This is just common sense. Why does it need to be only 5-4? Amazing.

Only the NPR/MSNBC/La Raza fringe wold try to argue otherwise.

Now we need a decision to stop Obama from dumping illegals throughout the Southwest.

Jun 09, 2014 1:27pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.