# Immigration & Naturalization Service v. Hector

> Supreme Court of the United States · November 17, 1986 · 479 U.S. 85

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9430742

## Case

- **Full name:** Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Hector
- **Court:** Supreme Court of the United States
- **Decided:** November 17, 1986
- **Citations:** 479 U.S. 85; 55 U.S.L.W. 3351; 107 S. Ct. 379; 93 L. Ed. 2d 326; 1986 U.S. LEXIS 19
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Marshall
- **Judges:** Marshall, Brennan
- **Cited by:** 47 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9430742

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- stating that the Board does not need to consider hardship to third parties other than the qualifying relatives delineated in the Act for purposes of deciding whether an alien is entitled to relief
- stating that, although “Congress has shown its willingness to redefine the term 18 ‘child’ on a number of occasions,” it has not “authorized [courts] to adopt a functional 19 definition”
- noting that Congress amended the INA to overrule INS v. Phinpathya, 464 U.S. 183, 104 S.Ct. 584, 78 L.Ed.2d 401 (1984), which had reached a seemingly harsh result regarding the "continuity of physical presence” requirement dictated by Congress’s plain language
- noting that the court could not adopt a “functional approach” to the meaning of the term “child” in the Act, when the statutory definition did not authorize such an approach

## Opinion text

Justice Marshall
dissents from this summary disposition, which has been ordered without affording the parties prior notice or an opportunity to file briefs on the merits. See, e. g., Acosta v. Louisiana Dept. of Health and Human Resources, 478 U. S. 251 (1986) (Marshall, J., dissenting).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9430742. Public record. Not legal advice.