The highly publicized Collado deportation case has been terminated with prejudice possibly putting a serious dent in one of the most onerous sections of the 1996 Immigration Act.

The Collado case (Board of Immigration Appeals Int. Dec. 3333, Dec. 18. 1997) states that any Lawful Permanent Resident is to be regarded as seeking an admission into the United States for purposes of the immigration laws without further inquiry into the nature and circumstances of a departure from and return to this country. Collado won at the Immigration Judge level, but the INS appealed to the BIA and won.

The case involves Jesus Collado-Munoz, a national of the Dominican Republic who has been a green card holder for more than 25 years. After leaving the US for two weeks last year to visit his native country, he was charged by the INS with inadmissibility under Section 212(a)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act based on a 1974 conviction of sexual abuse of a minor. The facts of that case were more innocuous than the charges sound - Collado was a young man in his late teens and was charged with having sex with his girlfriend who was a minor just a few years younger. Collado received three years probation for that offence and has had no trouble with the law since then. The issue in the case centered on whether the trip outside the US was "brief, casual and innocent" such that it should not count as a departure and readmission for purposes of the new immigration law.

The Board of Immigration Appeals ruled against Collado stating that the earlier doctrine of "brief, casual and innocent" departures was superceded by the 1996 Act that now uses the new concept of "admission." The new law states that a lawful permanent resident is considered to be seeking admission if he or she has committed an offense listed in Section 212(a)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. Collado's offense is covered in this section. Based on this, the BIA sent the case back to the Immigration Judge with an order to conduct further proceedings.

So why did the Immigration Judge dismiss the case when the BIA told the judge not to. The INS is the surprising reason. Apparently, the INS has changed its position completely and now is indicating that it was not able to prove that Collado was inadmissible. The reasoning stems from a defense called the "petit offense exception" which would allow for leeway when a crime is very minor.

Expect this case to have an impact across the country.