11:29
Nah you wanna be wound up tight like a clock. All your parts working in synchronization, never missing a second.
Warning
Info
Warning
Info
LSDefine
Simple English definitions for legal terms
Vartelas v. Holder
Read a random definition: Public necessity
A quick definition of Vartelas v. Holder:
In Vartelas v. Holder, the Supreme Court had to decide if a law that allowed legal permanent residents to be removed from the US if they had committed a crime and left the country applied to people who had left before the law was passed. The Court decided that the old law applied to those people, not the new law. This meant that Panagis Vartelas, who had left the US before the new law was passed, could not be removed from the country. Justice Scalia disagreed with the decision, saying that the new law only applied to people who tried to come back to the US after it was passed.A more thorough explanation:
Vartelas v. Holder is a legal case that was decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in 2012.
The case dealt with the question of whether a law passed in 1996, called the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA), applies retroactively to lawful permanent residents who were convicted of a crime and left the United States before the law was passed. The Court held that the law that was in effect at the time of the conviction applies, not the IIRIRA.
Panagis Vartelas was a lawful permanent resident of the United States who was convicted of a crime in 1994. At the time, he was allowed to briefly leave the country without losing his status. However, in 1996, the IIRIRA was passed, which changed the law and made it so that people like Vartelas could face removal proceedings if they left the country. In 2003, Vartelas went to Greece to visit family and was subject to the IIRIRA. He was placed in removal proceedings.
The example illustrates how the IIRIRA affected Vartelas' situation. Before the law was passed, he was allowed to leave the country without losing his status. However, after the law was passed, he was subject to removal proceedings if he left the country. The Court held that the law that was in effect at the time of his conviction applied, not the IIRIRA.