## Facts

- George Fleuti, a Swiss national, was admitted to the United States as a lawful permanent resident in 1952.
- In 1956, Fleuti took a short trip to Ensenada, Mexico, described as lasting “about a couple hours,” and then returned to the United States.
- In 1959, immigration authorities initiated deportation proceedings, alleging Fleuti’s 1956 return constituted an “entry.”
- The government asserted Fleuti was excludable at that purported “entry” under INA § 212(a)(4) as “afflicted with psychopathic personality,” and therefore deportable under INA § 241(a)(1) as excludable “at the time of entry.”
- The district court sustained the deportation order.
- The court of appeals set aside the deportation order on the ground that § 212(a)(4), as applied, was unconstitutionally vague.
- The Supreme Court granted review and treated the meaning of “entry” under INA § 101(a)(13) as a threshold statutory question.

## Issues

1. Whether a lawful permanent resident’s brief trip outside the United States can constitute an “entry” upon return under INA § 101(a)(13).
2. Whether the Court should resolve the case on statutory grounds to avoid reaching the constitutionality of INA § 212(a)(4).

## Decision

- The Supreme Court held that it would be inconsistent with Congress’s purpose in INA § 101(a)(13) to treat an “innocent, casual and brief” excursion by a resident alien as an intended departure that disrupts resident status and triggers an “entry” on return.
- The Court declined to decide definitively whether Fleuti’s particular trip met that standard because the record lacked sufficient detail about the circumstances of the excursion.
- The Court vacated the court of appeals’ judgment and remanded for further proceedings to apply § 101(a)(13) as construed by the Court.

## Legal Principles

- Not every crossing of an international border by a lawful permanent resident constitutes an “entry” under INA § 101(a)(13).
- A resident alien’s return may fall outside “entry” when the departure was “innocent, casual and brief” and not intended to meaningfully interrupt U.S. residence.
- Relevant considerations include the length of absence, the purpose of the trip, and indicia of intent to depart in a manner meaningfully interruptive of residence.
- Courts should avoid constitutional rulings when a case can be decided on a threshold statutory ground.

## Conclusion

The Court interpreted INA § 101(a)(13) to exclude from “entry” certain minor departures by lawful permanent residents—those that are innocent, casual, and brief—and remanded for fact-finding to determine whether Fleuti’s short trip to Mexico fell within that category, thereby postponing any constitutional review of the exclusion ground invoked by the government.


Rosenberg v. Fleuti, 374 U.S. 449 (1963)