Thousands of immigrant families living within the states covered by the First Circuit Court of Appeals can breathe a sigh of relief after a decision issued by a federal court of appeals on Wednesday, January 5. The court's decision in this landmark case allows certain "paroled" immigrants married to U.S. citizens to obtain "green cards" without having to leave the United States. Without this ruling, those families faced separations of up to 10 years.

The case is Succar v. Ashcroft, civil action number 03-2445, issued by the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, in Boston. The case applies to removal (deportation) cases pending in Massachusetts, Maine, New Hampshire, Rhode Island and Puerto Rico, the area covered by the First Circuit Court of Appeals. The First Circuit is the first court to address this question, so the decision may influence other courts to reach the same conclusion in the future.

The Court overturned a regulation of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) (formerly the INS). The regulation said that, even though they are married to U.S. citizens and have violated no law, immigrants such as Mr. Succar cannot qualify for lawful permanent residence ("green cards") without leaving the United States if they were "paroled" into the United States and are in removal (deportation) proceedings. A person is "paroled" into the United States when the government allows them to enter physically although their immigration status is still in question. The First Circuit found that the government's regulation undercut Congress's intent to make it easier for these immigrants to get their green cards.

The case was brought by Wissam Succar, a Lebanese native. The government paroled Mr. Succar into the United States to apply for asylum. In 2001, while his case was pending, he married a U.S. citizen, who filed immigration papers on his behalf. An immigration judge denied his application for legal status because of the government regulation struck down by the Court yesterday. "This far-reaching decision will help thousands of American families," said Mary Kenney, Senior Attorney at the American Immigration Law Foundation (AILF), who argued the Succar case for Amici Curiae ("friends of the court"). "Law-abiding immigrants now may get their green cards and stabilize their lives," Kenney continued. "The court recognized that agencies cannot arbitrarily deny immigration status to individuals whom Congress specifically intended to assist."

In overturning this regulation, the Court found that Congress specifically intended that parolees in removal proceedings would be eligible to apply for adjustment of status to lawful permanent residence when, like Mr. Succar, they were married to a U.S. citizen and had an approved visa petition. The Court also found that the regulation "re-institute[d]" the very problems Congress wished to solve, and upset "Congress's careful balancing" of the country's security needs and the national interests advanced through the immigration of close family members of U.S. citizens.

Any one with questions about whether the Succar decision could benefit them, should contact an immigration attorney in their area. The American Immigration Law Foundation cannot offer advise on individual cases.