The U.S. Supreme Court sent an immigration case back to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals to reevaluate whether noncitizens already admitted to the U.S. must meet the strict “clearly and beyond doubt” standard when applying for green cards as protection against removal.
Background of the Case
Sintia Dines Nivar Santana, a Dominican Republic citizen, entered the United States on a visitor visa in May 2000. She was authorized to stay for six months but remained in the country beyond that time. Years later, her son became a citizen through honorable military service in the U.S. Army. As a citizen, he filed a petition to establish their family relationship, allowing Nivar to apply for a green card by submitting Form I-485 in July 2014 to adjust her immigration status.
However, in March 2016, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) denied her request, claiming she was inadmissible because she had falsely claimed U.S. citizenship on a 2013 employment form while applying for a job. Nivar disputed this, submitting an affidavit stating she did not recognize the form or knowingly indicate she was a U.S. citizen.
In 2018, an immigration judge (IJ) held a hearing to review Nivar’s case. The judge informed her that she needed to prove her admissibility “clearly and beyond doubt” as the standard of evidence. Nivar’s attorney argued that the correct standard was the lower “preponderance of the evidence” standard, which is commonly used in removal relief cases.
Despite her defense, the IJ denied her adjustment request. In 2022, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed this decision, maintaining that the “clearly and beyond doubt” standard applied. The BIA reasoned that Nivar’s case was like someone seeking admission at a border, even though she had already been admitted into the U.S.
Nivar appealed the decision, arguing that the BIA and the immigration judge had applied the wrong standard. She claimed she should only need to meet the “preponderance of the evidence” standard since she was already admitted to the U.S.
Present Day
On January 13, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court intervened, sending the case back to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals for reconsideration. The Supreme Court pointed to its 2024 decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, which reduced judicial deference to federal agencies and allowed courts to interpret laws independently.
The justices vacated the Fourth Circuit’s earlier ruling. They asked the court to reconsider the appropriate standard of proof for noncitizens like Nivar who are already in the U.S. and want to adjust their status.
Significance of the Case
The case of Sintia Dines Nivar Santana has significant implications for U.S. immigration law and judicial processes. The implications include:
- Evidentiary Standards for Green Card Applicants
This case is important because it questions whether it is fair to require people already living in the U.S. to meet a strict standard of proof similar to those trying to enter the country. It will help clarify what level of proof green card applicants need when defending against removal.
- Judicial Control Over Immigration Agency Decisions
The outcome of the review could have a significant impact on immigration law by determining how much control courts have over agency decisions. It may also affect how federal courts review similar cases in the future.
- Conflicting Court Rulings on Immigration Standards
The case points to disagreements among courts. The Ninth Circuit previously ruled that the Immigration and Nationality Act uses a lower standard of proof (“preponderance of the evidence”) in similar situations. The federal government disagrees, calling that ruling an exception. The Fourth Circuit’s review could set new rules for many noncitizens applying for green cards in the U.S.
To stay updated and informed, watch our news section or drop your immigration queries on ImmigrationQuestion.com and get responses from seasoned attorneys.
