 ALASKA COURT RULES IMMIGRANTS QUALIFY FOR SPECIAL STATE BENEFITS
The Alaska Supreme Court recently issued a decision that will have a significant impact on foreign nationals living in the state. In the case, State v. Andrade (available online at http://www.alaska.net/~akctlib/sp5414.txt), the court ruled that certain non-citizens lawfully in the US are eligible for Permanent Fund Dividends (money the state has received from oil and gas revenues and distributes to residents of the state).
In a previous case, the Alaska Supreme Court had ruled that undocumented immigrants were not eligible for PFDs, but left open the issue of whether others might be eligible. Four members of a family sought the dividends. There were two US citizen children, a permanent resident mother, and a father who had applied for asylum. The state denied the funds, and the family filed suit. The children were found ineligible because of the parents’ status.
Alaska law requires a person to be “lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the US” to be eligible for PFDs. The court found that the most important issue involved in interpreting the meaning of this requirement is the intent of the foreign national. The plaintiffs, represented by Alaska immigration lawyer Margaret Stock, argued that because the statutory language mirrored language in the Immigration and Nationality Act, it should be given the same effect, and that because a number of people who would be considered “lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the US” under federal law were excluded from PFD eligibility, the state’s rules were unconstitutional. The court disagreed, finding that while the language was similar, the state statute was not to be interpreted the same as the federal one. The court found that the state statute should be interpreted to mean lawfully in the state and intending to remain indefinitely.
The state argued that immigrants not admitted for permanent residence could not form the intent to remain in the state, and therefore were not eligible for PFDs. The court disagreed, noting that while in most cases someone who is not a permanent resident cannot intend to remain in the US permanently, there are some cases where this is allowed. For example, certain nonimmigrant visas, including Hs and Ls are known as dual intent visas, meaning that the person holding them is not required to demonstrate their intent to depart the US after their period of authorized admission. Because of this, clearly some people who are not permanent residents can nonetheless have the intent to remain in the US permanently. These people, the court found, are eligible for PFDs.
Hundreds of people are expected to benefit from this ruling, including people with pending applications for adjustment of status and asylum.
| 
