Lauvik v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
910 F.2d 658 (1990)
- Written by Eric DiVito, JD
Facts
Egil Lauvik (plaintiff) was a citizen of Norway who came to the United States as an E-2 nonimmigrant treaty investor after investing in a motel/trailer park in the state of Washington. Lauvik retained property and investments in Norway, including a $100,000 furnished home leased yearly, a $5,000 waterfront property, and over $6,000 in bonds and bank accounts. Lauvik was initially granted permission to stay in the United States for one year and was later granted a one-year extension. Lauvik, for whom English was his second language, filled out his application for extension with no help from counsel. The extension application form had a section in which applicants were to indicate the length of requested extension; in this space on his form, Lauvik wrote, “4 more years till I get my citizenship.” This response was then crossed out, and in its place, Lauvik wrote, “1 year.” Lauvik applied for a second one-year extension, which was denied by the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) (defendant). The INS determined that Lauvik did not intend to depart the United States upon termination of his status. After exhausting his administrative remedies, Lauvik filed a petition for relief in district court. The district court granted the INS’s motion for summary judgment. Lauvik appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Canby, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,400 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
