From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
|
 |
|||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
|
|Prior=Motion to dismiss granted, Zhang v. Napolitano, 663 [[F. Supp. 2d]] [https://www.leagle.com/decision/infdco20100405378 913] ([[C.D. Cal.]] 2009); affirmed sub. nom., ”Cuellar de Osorio v. Mayorkas”, 656 [[F.3d]] [https://www.leagle.com/decision/infco20110902091 954] (9th Cir. 2011); reversed on rehearing ”[[en banc]]”, 695 [[F.3d]] [https://www.leagle.com/decision/infco20120926167 1003] (9th Cir. 2012); [[Certiorari|cert]]. granted, {{ussc|570|916|2013|el=no}}. |
|Prior=Motion to dismiss granted, Zhang v. Napolitano, 663 [[F. Supp. 2d]] [https://www.leagle.com/decision/infdco20100405378 913] ([[C.D. Cal.]] 2009); affirmed sub. nom., ”Cuellar de Osorio v. Mayorkas”, 656 [[F.3d]] [https://www.leagle.com/decision/infco20110902091 954] (9th Cir. 2011); reversed on rehearing ”[[en banc]]”, 695 [[F.3d]] [https://www.leagle.com/decision/infco20120926167 1003] (9th Cir. 2012); [[Certiorari|cert]]. granted, {{ussc|570|916|2013|el=no}}. |
||
|
|Subsequent= |
|Subsequent= |
||
|
|Holding=Lawful residents in the United States who turned twenty-one while their visa applications were being processed could not retain their original application date after “aging out” of eligibility for child-visas. |
|||
|
|Holding= |
|||
|
|Majority=Kagan |
|Majority=Kagan |
||
|
|JoinMajority=Kennedy, Ginsburg |
|JoinMajority=Kennedy, Ginsburg |
||
| Line 26: | Line 26: | ||
|
}} |
}} |
||
|
””’Scialabba v. Cuellar de Osorio””’, 573 U.S. 41 (2014), was a [[Supreme Court of the United States|United States Supreme Court]] case in which the court |
””’Scialabba v. Cuellar de Osorio””’, 573 U.S. 41 (2014), was a [[Supreme Court of the United States|United States Supreme Court]] case in which the court lawful residents in the United States who turned twenty-one while their visa applications were being processed could not retain their original application date after “aging out” of eligibility for child-visas. Those “aged out” were moved to the bottom of the list of applicants for adult visas.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.oyez.org/cases/2013/12-930|title=Scialabba v. Cuellar de Osorio|publisher=Oyez|accessdate=1 October 2017}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/mayorkas-v-cuellar-de-osorio/|title=Scialabba v. Cuellar de Osorio|publisher=SCOTUS Blog|accessdate=1 October 2017}}</ref> The [[United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit|Ninth Circuit Court]] had originally agreed that provisions in the Child Status Protection Act allowed applicants to retain their date. |
||
|
==References== |
==References== |
||
Latest revision as of 18:12, 6 December 2025
2014 United States Supreme Court case
| Scialabba v. Cuellar de Osorio | |
|---|---|
 |
|
| Full case name | Lori Scialabba, Acting Director, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, et al., Petitioners v. Rosalina Cuellar de Osorio, et al. |
| Docket no. | 12-930 |
| Citations | 573 U.S. 41 (more) |
| Prior | Motion to dismiss granted, Zhang v. Napolitano, 663 F. Supp. 2d 913 (C.D. Cal. 2009); affirmed sub. nom., Cuellar de Osorio v. Mayorkas, 656 F.3d 954 (9th Cir. 2011); reversed on rehearing en banc, 695 F.3d 1003 (9th Cir. 2012); cert. granted, 570 U.S. 916 (2013). |
| Lawful residents in the United States who turned twenty-one while their visa applications were being processed could not retain their original application date after “aging out” of eligibility for child-visas. | |
|
|
| Majority | Kagan, joined by Kennedy, Ginsburg |
| Concurrence | Roberts (in judgment), joined by Scalia |
| Dissent | Alito |
| Dissent | Sotomayor, joined by Breyer; Thomas (except footnote 3) |
Scialabba v. Cuellar de Osorio, 573 U.S. 41 (2014), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court heldthat lawful residents in the United States who turned twenty-one while their visa applications were being processed could not retain their original application date after “aging out” of eligibility for child-visas. Those “aged out” were moved to the bottom of the list of applicants for adult visas.[1][2] The Ninth Circuit Court had originally agreed that provisions in the Child Status Protection Act allowed applicants to retain their date.
