Al-Sharif v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, 734 F.3d 207
25 Eylül 2018 tarihinde Wayback Machine sitesinde arşivlendi. (3d Cir. 2013) (en banc) (holding that an LPR convicted of an aggravated felony cannot obtain U.S. citizenship); see also Mobin v. Taylor, 598 F.Supp.2d 777 9 Aralık 2018 tarihinde Wayback Machine sitesinde arşivlendi. (E.D. Va. 2009)
Genel olarak bakınız; Agor v. Sessions, No. 17-3231 1 Ağustos 2020 tarihinde Wayback Machine sitesinde arşivlendi. (2d Cir. 26 Eylül 2018) ("Federal mahkemelerin bir düzenleme başvurusunun takdirine bağlı olarak reddini incelemesine izin verilmese de, başvuranın uyum sağlama uygunluğunu inceleme yetkisine sahibiz.") (özet dizimi); Alimbaev v. Att'y, 872 F.3d 188 29 Kasım 2018 tarihinde Wayback Machine sitesinde arşivlendi., 194 (3d Cir. 2017) (same); Bonilla v. Lynch, 840 F.3d 575 6 Ekim 2018 tarihinde Wayback Machine sitesinde arşivlendi., 581-82 (9th Cir. 2016) (aynı).
Zivkovic v. Holder, 724 F.3d 894 9 Aralık 2018 tarihinde Wayback Machine sitesinde arşivlendi., 911 (7th Cir. 2013) ("Because [Petitioner]'s aggravated felony convictions were more than a decade old before the 1988 statute took effect, they cannot be used as a ground for removal...."); Ledezma-Galicia v. Holder, 636 F.3d 1059 9 Aralık 2018 tarihinde Wayback Machine sitesinde arşivlendi., 1080 (9th Cir. 2010) ("[Petitioner] is not removable by reason of being an aggravated felon, because 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) does not apply to convictions, like [Petitioner]'s, that occurred prior to November 18, 1988."); but see Canto v. Holder, 593 F.3d 638 9 Aralık 2018 tarihinde Wayback Machine sitesinde arşivlendi., 640-42 (7th Cir. 2010) (good example of absurdity and violation of the U.S. Constitution), cert. denied, 131 S.Ct. 85 (2010) (Question Presented: "Are individuals who went to trial entitled to the same relief provided in St. Cyr such that they may continue to seek waiver of deportation under Section 212(c) despite its repeal?" Here, p.3 12 Nisan 2019 tarihinde Wayback Machine sitesinde arşivlendi., the "15 years" argument had been completely waived).
Rubin v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 583 U.S. ___ (2018) (Slip Opinion at 10 22 Şubat 2018 tarihinde Wayback Machine sitesinde arşivlendi.) (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted); see also Matter of Song, 27 I&N Dec. 488 21 Kasım 2018 tarihinde Wayback Machine sitesinde arşivlendi., 492 (BIA 2018) ("Because the language of both the statute and the regulations is plain and unambiguous, we are bound to follow it."); Matter of Figueroa, 25 I&N Dec. 596 12 Nisan 2019 tarihinde Wayback Machine sitesinde arşivlendi., 598 (BIA 2011) ("When interpreting statutes and regulations, we look first to the plain meaning of the language and are required to give effect to unambiguously expressed intent. Executive intent is presumed to be expressed by the ordinary meaning of the words used. We also construe a statute or regulation to give effect to all of its provisions.") (citations omitted); Lamie v. United States Trustee, 540 U.S. 526 21 Temmuz 2018 tarihinde Wayback Machine sitesinde arşivlendi., 534 (2004); TRW Inc. v. Andrews, 534 U.S. 19 19 Eylül 2018 tarihinde Wayback Machine sitesinde arşivlendi., 31 (2001) ("It is a cardinalprinciple of statutory construction that a statute ought, upon the whole, to be so construed that, if it can be prevented, no clause, sentence, or word shall be superfluous, void, or insignificant.") (internal quotation marks omitted); United States v. Menasche, 348 U.S. 528 20 Eylül 2018 tarihinde Wayback Machine sitesinde arşivlendi., 538-539 (1955) ("It is our duty to give effect, if possible, to every clause and word of a statute." (internal quotation marks omitted); NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp., 301 U.S. 1 20 Eylül 2018 tarihinde Wayback Machine sitesinde arşivlendi., 30 (1937) ("The cardinal principle of statutory construction is to save and not to destroy. We have repeatedly held that as between two possible interpretations of a statute, by one of which it would be unconstitutional and by the other valid, our plain duty is to adopt that which will save the act. Even to avoid a serious doubt the rule is the same.").
NLRB v. SW General, Inc., 580 U.S. ___, ___, 137 S.Ct. 929 20 Temmuz 2018 tarihinde Wayback Machine sitesinde arşivlendi., 939 (2017) ("The ordinary meaning of 'notwithstanding' is 'in spite of,' or 'without prevention or obstruction from or by.' In statutes, the [notwithstanding any other provision of law] 'shows which provision prevails in the event of a clash.'"); In re JMC Telecom LLC, 416 B.R. 738 15 Temmuz 2018 tarihinde Wayback Machine sitesinde arşivlendi., 743 (C.D. Cal. 2009) (explaining that "the phrase 'notwithstanding any other provision of law' expresses the legislative intent to override all contrary statutoryanddecisional law.") (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted) (emphasis added); see also In re Partida, 862 F.3d 909 21 Temmuz 2018 tarihinde Wayback Machine sitesinde arşivlendi., 912 (9th Cir. 2017) ("That is the function and purpose of the 'notwithstanding' clause."); Drakes Bay Oyster Co. v. Jewell, 747 F.3d 1073 20 Temmuz 2018 tarihinde Wayback Machine sitesinde arşivlendi., 1083 (9th Cir. 2014) ("As a general matter, 'notwithstanding' clauses nullify conflicting provisions of law."); Jones v. United States, No. 08-645C 20 Temmuz 2018 tarihinde Wayback Machine sitesinde arşivlendi., p.4-5 (Fed. Cl. September 14, 2009); Kucana v. Holder, 558 U.S. 233 25 Kasım 2018 tarihinde Wayback Machine sitesinde arşivlendi., 238-39 n.1 (2010); Cisneros v. Alpine Ridge Group, 508 U.S. 10 20 Temmuz 2018 tarihinde Wayback Machine sitesinde arşivlendi., 18 (1993) (collecting court cases).
8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(3) 14 Kasım 2020 tarihinde Wayback Machine sitesinde arşivlendi.; ayrıca bakınız 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(22) 14 Kasım 2020 tarihinde Wayback Machine sitesinde arşivlendi. ("'ABD vatandaşı' terimi, (A) Birleşik Devletler vatandaşı veya (B) Birleşik Devletler vatandaşı olmamakla birlikte Birleşik Devletler'e kalıcı bağlılık borcu olan bir kişi anlamına gelir."); 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(31) 14 Kasım 2020 tarihinde Wayback Machine sitesinde arşivlendi. ("'Kalıcı' terimi, geçiciden farklı olarak devam eden veya kalıcı nitelikte bir ilişki anlamına gelir, ancak bir ilişki, feshedilebilecek durumun sonunda olsa bile Birleşik Devletler kalıcı olabilir."); Şablon:Uscsub ("The term 'residence' means the place of general abode; the place of general abode of a person means his principal, actual dwelling place in fact, without regard to intent."); Black's Law Dictionary at p.87 (9th ed., 2009) (defining the term "permanent allegiance" as "[t]he lasting allegiance owed to [the United States] by its citizens or [permanent resident]s.") (emphasis added); Ricketts v. Att'y Gen., 897 F.3d 491 15 Kasım 2018 tarihinde Wayback Machine sitesinde arşivlendi., 493-94 n.3 (3d Cir. 2018) ("Citizenship and nationality are not synonymous."); Jennings v. Rodriguez, 583 U.S. ___, ___-___ (2018), 138 S.Ct. 830 3 Aralık 2018 tarihinde Wayback Machine sitesinde arşivlendi., 855-56 (2018) (JusticeThomas concurring) ("The term 'or' is almost always disjunctive, that is, the [phrase]s it connects are to be given separate meanings."); Chalmers v. Shalala, 23 F.3d 752 21 Temmuz 2018 tarihinde Wayback Machine sitesinde arşivlendi., 755 (3d Cir. 1994) (same).
cornell.edu
law.cornell.edu
8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(20) 14 Kasım 2020 tarihinde Wayback Machine sitesinde arşivlendi.: "‘Daimî ikamet için yasal olarak kabul edilmiş’ sözü, göçmenlik yasalarına uygun bir şekilde Birleşik Devletler'de yaşayan göçmenlerin, kalıcı bir oturum alma ayrıcalığının yasal olarak tanınmış olması durumu anlamına gelmektedir."
8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(3) 14 Kasım 2020 tarihinde Wayback Machine sitesinde arşivlendi.; ayrıca bakınız 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(22) 14 Kasım 2020 tarihinde Wayback Machine sitesinde arşivlendi. ("'ABD vatandaşı' terimi, (A) Birleşik Devletler vatandaşı veya (B) Birleşik Devletler vatandaşı olmamakla birlikte Birleşik Devletler'e kalıcı bağlılık borcu olan bir kişi anlamına gelir."); 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(31) 14 Kasım 2020 tarihinde Wayback Machine sitesinde arşivlendi. ("'Kalıcı' terimi, geçiciden farklı olarak devam eden veya kalıcı nitelikte bir ilişki anlamına gelir, ancak bir ilişki, feshedilebilecek durumun sonunda olsa bile Birleşik Devletler kalıcı olabilir."); Şablon:Uscsub ("The term 'residence' means the place of general abode; the place of general abode of a person means his principal, actual dwelling place in fact, without regard to intent."); Black's Law Dictionary at p.87 (9th ed., 2009) (defining the term "permanent allegiance" as "[t]he lasting allegiance owed to [the United States] by its citizens or [permanent resident]s.") (emphasis added); Ricketts v. Att'y Gen., 897 F.3d 491 15 Kasım 2018 tarihinde Wayback Machine sitesinde arşivlendi., 493-94 n.3 (3d Cir. 2018) ("Citizenship and nationality are not synonymous."); Jennings v. Rodriguez, 583 U.S. ___, ___-___ (2018), 138 S.Ct. 830 3 Aralık 2018 tarihinde Wayback Machine sitesinde arşivlendi., 855-56 (2018) (JusticeThomas concurring) ("The term 'or' is almost always disjunctive, that is, the [phrase]s it connects are to be given separate meanings."); Chalmers v. Shalala, 23 F.3d 752 21 Temmuz 2018 tarihinde Wayback Machine sitesinde arşivlendi., 755 (3d Cir. 1994) (same).
courtlistener.com
Genel olarak bakınız; Agor v. Sessions, No. 17-3231 1 Ağustos 2020 tarihinde Wayback Machine sitesinde arşivlendi. (2d Cir. 26 Eylül 2018) ("Federal mahkemelerin bir düzenleme başvurusunun takdirine bağlı olarak reddini incelemesine izin verilmese de, başvuranın uyum sağlama uygunluğunu inceleme yetkisine sahibiz.") (özet dizimi); Alimbaev v. Att'y, 872 F.3d 188 29 Kasım 2018 tarihinde Wayback Machine sitesinde arşivlendi., 194 (3d Cir. 2017) (same); Bonilla v. Lynch, 840 F.3d 575 6 Ekim 2018 tarihinde Wayback Machine sitesinde arşivlendi., 581-82 (9th Cir. 2016) (aynı).
Şablon:Uscsub ("The term [aggravated felony] applies to an offense described in this paragraph ... and applies to such an offense ... for which the term of imprisonment was completed within the previous 15 years."); Matter of Vasquez-Muniz, 23 I&N Dec. 207 12 Nisan 2019 tarihinde Wayback Machine sitesinde arşivlendi., 211 (BIA 2002) (en banc) ("This penultimate sentence, governing the enumeration of crimes in section 101(a)(43) of the Act, refers the reader to all of the crimes 'described in' the aggravated felony provision."); Luna Torres v. Lynch, 578 U.S. ___, ___, 136 S.Ct. 1623 2 Aralık 2018 tarihinde Wayback Machine sitesinde arşivlendi., 1627 (2016) ("The whole point of § 1101(a)(43)'s penultimate sentence is to make clear that a listed offense should lead to swift removal, no matter whether it violates federal, state, or foreign law."); see also Şablon:Uscfr(t) ("The term aggravated felony means a crime (or a conspiracy or attempt to commit a crime) described in section 101(a)(43) of the Act. This definition is applicable to any proceeding, application, custody determination, or adjudication pending on or after September 30, 1996, but shall apply under section 276(b) of the Act only to violations of section 276(a) of the Act occurring on or after that date.") (emphasis added).
Rubin v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 583 U.S. ___ (2018) (Slip Opinion at 10 22 Şubat 2018 tarihinde Wayback Machine sitesinde arşivlendi.) (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted); see also Matter of Song, 27 I&N Dec. 488 21 Kasım 2018 tarihinde Wayback Machine sitesinde arşivlendi., 492 (BIA 2018) ("Because the language of both the statute and the regulations is plain and unambiguous, we are bound to follow it."); Matter of Figueroa, 25 I&N Dec. 596 12 Nisan 2019 tarihinde Wayback Machine sitesinde arşivlendi., 598 (BIA 2011) ("When interpreting statutes and regulations, we look first to the plain meaning of the language and are required to give effect to unambiguously expressed intent. Executive intent is presumed to be expressed by the ordinary meaning of the words used. We also construe a statute or regulation to give effect to all of its provisions.") (citations omitted); Lamie v. United States Trustee, 540 U.S. 526 21 Temmuz 2018 tarihinde Wayback Machine sitesinde arşivlendi., 534 (2004); TRW Inc. v. Andrews, 534 U.S. 19 19 Eylül 2018 tarihinde Wayback Machine sitesinde arşivlendi., 31 (2001) ("It is a cardinalprinciple of statutory construction that a statute ought, upon the whole, to be so construed that, if it can be prevented, no clause, sentence, or word shall be superfluous, void, or insignificant.") (internal quotation marks omitted); United States v. Menasche, 348 U.S. 528 20 Eylül 2018 tarihinde Wayback Machine sitesinde arşivlendi., 538-539 (1955) ("It is our duty to give effect, if possible, to every clause and word of a statute." (internal quotation marks omitted); NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp., 301 U.S. 1 20 Eylül 2018 tarihinde Wayback Machine sitesinde arşivlendi., 30 (1937) ("The cardinal principle of statutory construction is to save and not to destroy. We have repeatedly held that as between two possible interpretations of a statute, by one of which it would be unconstitutional and by the other valid, our plain duty is to adopt that which will save the act. Even to avoid a serious doubt the rule is the same.").
Genel olarak bakınız; Agor v. Sessions, No. 17-3231 1 Ağustos 2020 tarihinde Wayback Machine sitesinde arşivlendi. (2d Cir. 26 Eylül 2018) ("Federal mahkemelerin bir düzenleme başvurusunun takdirine bağlı olarak reddini incelemesine izin verilmese de, başvuranın uyum sağlama uygunluğunu inceleme yetkisine sahibiz.") (özet dizimi); Alimbaev v. Att'y, 872 F.3d 188 29 Kasım 2018 tarihinde Wayback Machine sitesinde arşivlendi., 194 (3d Cir. 2017) (same); Bonilla v. Lynch, 840 F.3d 575 6 Ekim 2018 tarihinde Wayback Machine sitesinde arşivlendi., 581-82 (9th Cir. 2016) (aynı).
Şablon:Uscsub ("The term [aggravated felony] applies to an offense described in this paragraph ... and applies to such an offense ... for which the term of imprisonment was completed within the previous 15 years."); Matter of Vasquez-Muniz, 23 I&N Dec. 207 12 Nisan 2019 tarihinde Wayback Machine sitesinde arşivlendi., 211 (BIA 2002) (en banc) ("This penultimate sentence, governing the enumeration of crimes in section 101(a)(43) of the Act, refers the reader to all of the crimes 'described in' the aggravated felony provision."); Luna Torres v. Lynch, 578 U.S. ___, ___, 136 S.Ct. 1623 2 Aralık 2018 tarihinde Wayback Machine sitesinde arşivlendi., 1627 (2016) ("The whole point of § 1101(a)(43)'s penultimate sentence is to make clear that a listed offense should lead to swift removal, no matter whether it violates federal, state, or foreign law."); see also Şablon:Uscfr(t) ("The term aggravated felony means a crime (or a conspiracy or attempt to commit a crime) described in section 101(a)(43) of the Act. This definition is applicable to any proceeding, application, custody determination, or adjudication pending on or after September 30, 1996, but shall apply under section 276(b) of the Act only to violations of section 276(a) of the Act occurring on or after that date.") (emphasis added).
Zivkovic v. Holder, 724 F.3d 894 9 Aralık 2018 tarihinde Wayback Machine sitesinde arşivlendi., 911 (7th Cir. 2013) ("Because [Petitioner]'s aggravated felony convictions were more than a decade old before the 1988 statute took effect, they cannot be used as a ground for removal...."); Ledezma-Galicia v. Holder, 636 F.3d 1059 9 Aralık 2018 tarihinde Wayback Machine sitesinde arşivlendi., 1080 (9th Cir. 2010) ("[Petitioner] is not removable by reason of being an aggravated felon, because 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) does not apply to convictions, like [Petitioner]'s, that occurred prior to November 18, 1988."); but see Canto v. Holder, 593 F.3d 638 9 Aralık 2018 tarihinde Wayback Machine sitesinde arşivlendi., 640-42 (7th Cir. 2010) (good example of absurdity and violation of the U.S. Constitution), cert. denied, 131 S.Ct. 85 (2010) (Question Presented: "Are individuals who went to trial entitled to the same relief provided in St. Cyr such that they may continue to seek waiver of deportation under Section 212(c) despite its repeal?" Here, p.3 12 Nisan 2019 tarihinde Wayback Machine sitesinde arşivlendi., the "15 years" argument had been completely waived).
NLRB v. SW General, Inc., 580 U.S. ___, ___, 137 S.Ct. 929 20 Temmuz 2018 tarihinde Wayback Machine sitesinde arşivlendi., 939 (2017) ("The ordinary meaning of 'notwithstanding' is 'in spite of,' or 'without prevention or obstruction from or by.' In statutes, the [notwithstanding any other provision of law] 'shows which provision prevails in the event of a clash.'"); In re JMC Telecom LLC, 416 B.R. 738 15 Temmuz 2018 tarihinde Wayback Machine sitesinde arşivlendi., 743 (C.D. Cal. 2009) (explaining that "the phrase 'notwithstanding any other provision of law' expresses the legislative intent to override all contrary statutoryanddecisional law.") (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted) (emphasis added); see also In re Partida, 862 F.3d 909 21 Temmuz 2018 tarihinde Wayback Machine sitesinde arşivlendi., 912 (9th Cir. 2017) ("That is the function and purpose of the 'notwithstanding' clause."); Drakes Bay Oyster Co. v. Jewell, 747 F.3d 1073 20 Temmuz 2018 tarihinde Wayback Machine sitesinde arşivlendi., 1083 (9th Cir. 2014) ("As a general matter, 'notwithstanding' clauses nullify conflicting provisions of law."); Jones v. United States, No. 08-645C 20 Temmuz 2018 tarihinde Wayback Machine sitesinde arşivlendi., p.4-5 (Fed. Cl. September 14, 2009); Kucana v. Holder, 558 U.S. 233 25 Kasım 2018 tarihinde Wayback Machine sitesinde arşivlendi., 238-39 n.1 (2010); Cisneros v. Alpine Ridge Group, 508 U.S. 10 20 Temmuz 2018 tarihinde Wayback Machine sitesinde arşivlendi., 18 (1993) (collecting court cases).
8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(3) 14 Kasım 2020 tarihinde Wayback Machine sitesinde arşivlendi.; ayrıca bakınız 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(22) 14 Kasım 2020 tarihinde Wayback Machine sitesinde arşivlendi. ("'ABD vatandaşı' terimi, (A) Birleşik Devletler vatandaşı veya (B) Birleşik Devletler vatandaşı olmamakla birlikte Birleşik Devletler'e kalıcı bağlılık borcu olan bir kişi anlamına gelir."); 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(31) 14 Kasım 2020 tarihinde Wayback Machine sitesinde arşivlendi. ("'Kalıcı' terimi, geçiciden farklı olarak devam eden veya kalıcı nitelikte bir ilişki anlamına gelir, ancak bir ilişki, feshedilebilecek durumun sonunda olsa bile Birleşik Devletler kalıcı olabilir."); Şablon:Uscsub ("The term 'residence' means the place of general abode; the place of general abode of a person means his principal, actual dwelling place in fact, without regard to intent."); Black's Law Dictionary at p.87 (9th ed., 2009) (defining the term "permanent allegiance" as "[t]he lasting allegiance owed to [the United States] by its citizens or [permanent resident]s.") (emphasis added); Ricketts v. Att'y Gen., 897 F.3d 491 15 Kasım 2018 tarihinde Wayback Machine sitesinde arşivlendi., 493-94 n.3 (3d Cir. 2018) ("Citizenship and nationality are not synonymous."); Jennings v. Rodriguez, 583 U.S. ___, ___-___ (2018), 138 S.Ct. 830 3 Aralık 2018 tarihinde Wayback Machine sitesinde arşivlendi., 855-56 (2018) (JusticeThomas concurring) ("The term 'or' is almost always disjunctive, that is, the [phrase]s it connects are to be given separate meanings."); Chalmers v. Shalala, 23 F.3d 752 21 Temmuz 2018 tarihinde Wayback Machine sitesinde arşivlendi., 755 (3d Cir. 1994) (same).
Zivkovic v. Holder, 724 F.3d 894 9 Aralık 2018 tarihinde Wayback Machine sitesinde arşivlendi., 911 (7th Cir. 2013) ("Because [Petitioner]'s aggravated felony convictions were more than a decade old before the 1988 statute took effect, they cannot be used as a ground for removal...."); Ledezma-Galicia v. Holder, 636 F.3d 1059 9 Aralık 2018 tarihinde Wayback Machine sitesinde arşivlendi., 1080 (9th Cir. 2010) ("[Petitioner] is not removable by reason of being an aggravated felon, because 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) does not apply to convictions, like [Petitioner]'s, that occurred prior to November 18, 1988."); but see Canto v. Holder, 593 F.3d 638 9 Aralık 2018 tarihinde Wayback Machine sitesinde arşivlendi., 640-42 (7th Cir. 2010) (good example of absurdity and violation of the U.S. Constitution), cert. denied, 131 S.Ct. 85 (2010) (Question Presented: "Are individuals who went to trial entitled to the same relief provided in St. Cyr such that they may continue to seek waiver of deportation under Section 212(c) despite its repeal?" Here, p.3 12 Nisan 2019 tarihinde Wayback Machine sitesinde arşivlendi., the "15 years" argument had been completely waived).
supremecourt.gov
Rubin v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 583 U.S. ___ (2018) (Slip Opinion at 10 22 Şubat 2018 tarihinde Wayback Machine sitesinde arşivlendi.) (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted); see also Matter of Song, 27 I&N Dec. 488 21 Kasım 2018 tarihinde Wayback Machine sitesinde arşivlendi., 492 (BIA 2018) ("Because the language of both the statute and the regulations is plain and unambiguous, we are bound to follow it."); Matter of Figueroa, 25 I&N Dec. 596 12 Nisan 2019 tarihinde Wayback Machine sitesinde arşivlendi., 598 (BIA 2011) ("When interpreting statutes and regulations, we look first to the plain meaning of the language and are required to give effect to unambiguously expressed intent. Executive intent is presumed to be expressed by the ordinary meaning of the words used. We also construe a statute or regulation to give effect to all of its provisions.") (citations omitted); Lamie v. United States Trustee, 540 U.S. 526 21 Temmuz 2018 tarihinde Wayback Machine sitesinde arşivlendi., 534 (2004); TRW Inc. v. Andrews, 534 U.S. 19 19 Eylül 2018 tarihinde Wayback Machine sitesinde arşivlendi., 31 (2001) ("It is a cardinalprinciple of statutory construction that a statute ought, upon the whole, to be so construed that, if it can be prevented, no clause, sentence, or word shall be superfluous, void, or insignificant.") (internal quotation marks omitted); United States v. Menasche, 348 U.S. 528 20 Eylül 2018 tarihinde Wayback Machine sitesinde arşivlendi., 538-539 (1955) ("It is our duty to give effect, if possible, to every clause and word of a statute." (internal quotation marks omitted); NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp., 301 U.S. 1 20 Eylül 2018 tarihinde Wayback Machine sitesinde arşivlendi., 30 (1937) ("The cardinal principle of statutory construction is to save and not to destroy. We have repeatedly held that as between two possible interpretations of a statute, by one of which it would be unconstitutional and by the other valid, our plain duty is to adopt that which will save the act. Even to avoid a serious doubt the rule is the same.").
8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(20) 14 Kasım 2020 tarihinde Wayback Machine sitesinde arşivlendi.: "‘Daimî ikamet için yasal olarak kabul edilmiş’ sözü, göçmenlik yasalarına uygun bir şekilde Birleşik Devletler'de yaşayan göçmenlerin, kalıcı bir oturum alma ayrıcalığının yasal olarak tanınmış olması durumu anlamına gelmektedir."
Al-Sharif v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, 734 F.3d 207
25 Eylül 2018 tarihinde Wayback Machine sitesinde arşivlendi. (3d Cir. 2013) (en banc) (holding that an LPR convicted of an aggravated felony cannot obtain U.S. citizenship); see also Mobin v. Taylor, 598 F.Supp.2d 777 9 Aralık 2018 tarihinde Wayback Machine sitesinde arşivlendi. (E.D. Va. 2009)
Genel olarak bakınız; Agor v. Sessions, No. 17-3231 1 Ağustos 2020 tarihinde Wayback Machine sitesinde arşivlendi. (2d Cir. 26 Eylül 2018) ("Federal mahkemelerin bir düzenleme başvurusunun takdirine bağlı olarak reddini incelemesine izin verilmese de, başvuranın uyum sağlama uygunluğunu inceleme yetkisine sahibiz.") (özet dizimi); Alimbaev v. Att'y, 872 F.3d 188 29 Kasım 2018 tarihinde Wayback Machine sitesinde arşivlendi., 194 (3d Cir. 2017) (same); Bonilla v. Lynch, 840 F.3d 575 6 Ekim 2018 tarihinde Wayback Machine sitesinde arşivlendi., 581-82 (9th Cir. 2016) (aynı).
Şablon:Uscsub ("The term [aggravated felony] applies to an offense described in this paragraph ... and applies to such an offense ... for which the term of imprisonment was completed within the previous 15 years."); Matter of Vasquez-Muniz, 23 I&N Dec. 207 12 Nisan 2019 tarihinde Wayback Machine sitesinde arşivlendi., 211 (BIA 2002) (en banc) ("This penultimate sentence, governing the enumeration of crimes in section 101(a)(43) of the Act, refers the reader to all of the crimes 'described in' the aggravated felony provision."); Luna Torres v. Lynch, 578 U.S. ___, ___, 136 S.Ct. 1623 2 Aralık 2018 tarihinde Wayback Machine sitesinde arşivlendi., 1627 (2016) ("The whole point of § 1101(a)(43)'s penultimate sentence is to make clear that a listed offense should lead to swift removal, no matter whether it violates federal, state, or foreign law."); see also Şablon:Uscfr(t) ("The term aggravated felony means a crime (or a conspiracy or attempt to commit a crime) described in section 101(a)(43) of the Act. This definition is applicable to any proceeding, application, custody determination, or adjudication pending on or after September 30, 1996, but shall apply under section 276(b) of the Act only to violations of section 276(a) of the Act occurring on or after that date.") (emphasis added).
Zivkovic v. Holder, 724 F.3d 894 9 Aralık 2018 tarihinde Wayback Machine sitesinde arşivlendi., 911 (7th Cir. 2013) ("Because [Petitioner]'s aggravated felony convictions were more than a decade old before the 1988 statute took effect, they cannot be used as a ground for removal...."); Ledezma-Galicia v. Holder, 636 F.3d 1059 9 Aralık 2018 tarihinde Wayback Machine sitesinde arşivlendi., 1080 (9th Cir. 2010) ("[Petitioner] is not removable by reason of being an aggravated felon, because 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) does not apply to convictions, like [Petitioner]'s, that occurred prior to November 18, 1988."); but see Canto v. Holder, 593 F.3d 638 9 Aralık 2018 tarihinde Wayback Machine sitesinde arşivlendi., 640-42 (7th Cir. 2010) (good example of absurdity and violation of the U.S. Constitution), cert. denied, 131 S.Ct. 85 (2010) (Question Presented: "Are individuals who went to trial entitled to the same relief provided in St. Cyr such that they may continue to seek waiver of deportation under Section 212(c) despite its repeal?" Here, p.3 12 Nisan 2019 tarihinde Wayback Machine sitesinde arşivlendi., the "15 years" argument had been completely waived).
Rubin v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 583 U.S. ___ (2018) (Slip Opinion at 10 22 Şubat 2018 tarihinde Wayback Machine sitesinde arşivlendi.) (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted); see also Matter of Song, 27 I&N Dec. 488 21 Kasım 2018 tarihinde Wayback Machine sitesinde arşivlendi., 492 (BIA 2018) ("Because the language of both the statute and the regulations is plain and unambiguous, we are bound to follow it."); Matter of Figueroa, 25 I&N Dec. 596 12 Nisan 2019 tarihinde Wayback Machine sitesinde arşivlendi., 598 (BIA 2011) ("When interpreting statutes and regulations, we look first to the plain meaning of the language and are required to give effect to unambiguously expressed intent. Executive intent is presumed to be expressed by the ordinary meaning of the words used. We also construe a statute or regulation to give effect to all of its provisions.") (citations omitted); Lamie v. United States Trustee, 540 U.S. 526 21 Temmuz 2018 tarihinde Wayback Machine sitesinde arşivlendi., 534 (2004); TRW Inc. v. Andrews, 534 U.S. 19 19 Eylül 2018 tarihinde Wayback Machine sitesinde arşivlendi., 31 (2001) ("It is a cardinalprinciple of statutory construction that a statute ought, upon the whole, to be so construed that, if it can be prevented, no clause, sentence, or word shall be superfluous, void, or insignificant.") (internal quotation marks omitted); United States v. Menasche, 348 U.S. 528 20 Eylül 2018 tarihinde Wayback Machine sitesinde arşivlendi., 538-539 (1955) ("It is our duty to give effect, if possible, to every clause and word of a statute." (internal quotation marks omitted); NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp., 301 U.S. 1 20 Eylül 2018 tarihinde Wayback Machine sitesinde arşivlendi., 30 (1937) ("The cardinal principle of statutory construction is to save and not to destroy. We have repeatedly held that as between two possible interpretations of a statute, by one of which it would be unconstitutional and by the other valid, our plain duty is to adopt that which will save the act. Even to avoid a serious doubt the rule is the same.").
NLRB v. SW General, Inc., 580 U.S. ___, ___, 137 S.Ct. 929 20 Temmuz 2018 tarihinde Wayback Machine sitesinde arşivlendi., 939 (2017) ("The ordinary meaning of 'notwithstanding' is 'in spite of,' or 'without prevention or obstruction from or by.' In statutes, the [notwithstanding any other provision of law] 'shows which provision prevails in the event of a clash.'"); In re JMC Telecom LLC, 416 B.R. 738 15 Temmuz 2018 tarihinde Wayback Machine sitesinde arşivlendi., 743 (C.D. Cal. 2009) (explaining that "the phrase 'notwithstanding any other provision of law' expresses the legislative intent to override all contrary statutoryanddecisional law.") (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted) (emphasis added); see also In re Partida, 862 F.3d 909 21 Temmuz 2018 tarihinde Wayback Machine sitesinde arşivlendi., 912 (9th Cir. 2017) ("That is the function and purpose of the 'notwithstanding' clause."); Drakes Bay Oyster Co. v. Jewell, 747 F.3d 1073 20 Temmuz 2018 tarihinde Wayback Machine sitesinde arşivlendi., 1083 (9th Cir. 2014) ("As a general matter, 'notwithstanding' clauses nullify conflicting provisions of law."); Jones v. United States, No. 08-645C 20 Temmuz 2018 tarihinde Wayback Machine sitesinde arşivlendi., p.4-5 (Fed. Cl. September 14, 2009); Kucana v. Holder, 558 U.S. 233 25 Kasım 2018 tarihinde Wayback Machine sitesinde arşivlendi., 238-39 n.1 (2010); Cisneros v. Alpine Ridge Group, 508 U.S. 10 20 Temmuz 2018 tarihinde Wayback Machine sitesinde arşivlendi., 18 (1993) (collecting court cases).
8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(3) 14 Kasım 2020 tarihinde Wayback Machine sitesinde arşivlendi.; ayrıca bakınız 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(22) 14 Kasım 2020 tarihinde Wayback Machine sitesinde arşivlendi. ("'ABD vatandaşı' terimi, (A) Birleşik Devletler vatandaşı veya (B) Birleşik Devletler vatandaşı olmamakla birlikte Birleşik Devletler'e kalıcı bağlılık borcu olan bir kişi anlamına gelir."); 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(31) 14 Kasım 2020 tarihinde Wayback Machine sitesinde arşivlendi. ("'Kalıcı' terimi, geçiciden farklı olarak devam eden veya kalıcı nitelikte bir ilişki anlamına gelir, ancak bir ilişki, feshedilebilecek durumun sonunda olsa bile Birleşik Devletler kalıcı olabilir."); Şablon:Uscsub ("The term 'residence' means the place of general abode; the place of general abode of a person means his principal, actual dwelling place in fact, without regard to intent."); Black's Law Dictionary at p.87 (9th ed., 2009) (defining the term "permanent allegiance" as "[t]he lasting allegiance owed to [the United States] by its citizens or [permanent resident]s.") (emphasis added); Ricketts v. Att'y Gen., 897 F.3d 491 15 Kasım 2018 tarihinde Wayback Machine sitesinde arşivlendi., 493-94 n.3 (3d Cir. 2018) ("Citizenship and nationality are not synonymous."); Jennings v. Rodriguez, 583 U.S. ___, ___-___ (2018), 138 S.Ct. 830 3 Aralık 2018 tarihinde Wayback Machine sitesinde arşivlendi., 855-56 (2018) (JusticeThomas concurring) ("The term 'or' is almost always disjunctive, that is, the [phrase]s it connects are to be given separate meanings."); Chalmers v. Shalala, 23 F.3d 752 21 Temmuz 2018 tarihinde Wayback Machine sitesinde arşivlendi., 755 (3d Cir. 1994) (same).
Al-Sharif v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, 734 F.3d 207
25 Eylül 2018 tarihinde Wayback Machine sitesinde arşivlendi. (3d Cir. 2013) (en banc) (holding that an LPR convicted of an aggravated felony cannot obtain U.S. citizenship); see also Mobin v. Taylor, 598 F.Supp.2d 777 9 Aralık 2018 tarihinde Wayback Machine sitesinde arşivlendi. (E.D. Va. 2009)
Rubin v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 583 U.S. ___ (2018) (Slip Opinion at 10 22 Şubat 2018 tarihinde Wayback Machine sitesinde arşivlendi.) (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted); see also Matter of Song, 27 I&N Dec. 488 21 Kasım 2018 tarihinde Wayback Machine sitesinde arşivlendi., 492 (BIA 2018) ("Because the language of both the statute and the regulations is plain and unambiguous, we are bound to follow it."); Matter of Figueroa, 25 I&N Dec. 596 12 Nisan 2019 tarihinde Wayback Machine sitesinde arşivlendi., 598 (BIA 2011) ("When interpreting statutes and regulations, we look first to the plain meaning of the language and are required to give effect to unambiguously expressed intent. Executive intent is presumed to be expressed by the ordinary meaning of the words used. We also construe a statute or regulation to give effect to all of its provisions.") (citations omitted); Lamie v. United States Trustee, 540 U.S. 526 21 Temmuz 2018 tarihinde Wayback Machine sitesinde arşivlendi., 534 (2004); TRW Inc. v. Andrews, 534 U.S. 19 19 Eylül 2018 tarihinde Wayback Machine sitesinde arşivlendi., 31 (2001) ("It is a cardinalprinciple of statutory construction that a statute ought, upon the whole, to be so construed that, if it can be prevented, no clause, sentence, or word shall be superfluous, void, or insignificant.") (internal quotation marks omitted); United States v. Menasche, 348 U.S. 528 20 Eylül 2018 tarihinde Wayback Machine sitesinde arşivlendi., 538-539 (1955) ("It is our duty to give effect, if possible, to every clause and word of a statute." (internal quotation marks omitted); NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp., 301 U.S. 1 20 Eylül 2018 tarihinde Wayback Machine sitesinde arşivlendi., 30 (1937) ("The cardinal principle of statutory construction is to save and not to destroy. We have repeatedly held that as between two possible interpretations of a statute, by one of which it would be unconstitutional and by the other valid, our plain duty is to adopt that which will save the act. Even to avoid a serious doubt the rule is the same.").
NLRB v. SW General, Inc., 580 U.S. ___, ___, 137 S.Ct. 929 20 Temmuz 2018 tarihinde Wayback Machine sitesinde arşivlendi., 939 (2017) ("The ordinary meaning of 'notwithstanding' is 'in spite of,' or 'without prevention or obstruction from or by.' In statutes, the [notwithstanding any other provision of law] 'shows which provision prevails in the event of a clash.'"); In re JMC Telecom LLC, 416 B.R. 738 15 Temmuz 2018 tarihinde Wayback Machine sitesinde arşivlendi., 743 (C.D. Cal. 2009) (explaining that "the phrase 'notwithstanding any other provision of law' expresses the legislative intent to override all contrary statutoryanddecisional law.") (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted) (emphasis added); see also In re Partida, 862 F.3d 909 21 Temmuz 2018 tarihinde Wayback Machine sitesinde arşivlendi., 912 (9th Cir. 2017) ("That is the function and purpose of the 'notwithstanding' clause."); Drakes Bay Oyster Co. v. Jewell, 747 F.3d 1073 20 Temmuz 2018 tarihinde Wayback Machine sitesinde arşivlendi., 1083 (9th Cir. 2014) ("As a general matter, 'notwithstanding' clauses nullify conflicting provisions of law."); Jones v. United States, No. 08-645C 20 Temmuz 2018 tarihinde Wayback Machine sitesinde arşivlendi., p.4-5 (Fed. Cl. September 14, 2009); Kucana v. Holder, 558 U.S. 233 25 Kasım 2018 tarihinde Wayback Machine sitesinde arşivlendi., 238-39 n.1 (2010); Cisneros v. Alpine Ridge Group, 508 U.S. 10 20 Temmuz 2018 tarihinde Wayback Machine sitesinde arşivlendi., 18 (1993) (collecting court cases).
