Rosenberg v. Fleuti, 374 U.S. 449 (1963) (U.S. Supreme Court)
Rosenberg v. Fleuti is a landmark immigration decision that created the influential "Fleuti doctrine," a rule shielding lawful permanent residents (LPRs) from the severe collateral consequences of a brief, casual, and innocent trip abroad.
Does a lawful permanent resident's return to the United States after a brief, casual, and innocent trip abroad constitute an "entry" within the meaning of INA § 101(a)(13), thereby subjecting the person to exclusion based on grounds that predated the trip?
Under the INA's definition of "entry," a lawful permanent resident's return from a departure that was not meaningfully interruptive of the person's permanent residence—i.e., an innocent, casual, and brief excursion—does not constitute an "entry." Whether a departure is "meaningfully interruptive" turns on a practical, fact-specific assessment, including factors such as the length of time abroad, the purpose of the trip, the necessity and nature of travel formalities, and whether the resident intended or could reasonably be expected to interrupt or abandon U.S. residence.
A lawful permanent resident's brief, casual, and innocent excursion abroad does not amount to an "entry" under INA § 101(a)(13). The case was remanded for application of this standard to the facts.
Rosenberg v. Fleuti established the "Fleuti doctrine," long protecting LPRs who make trivial trips abroad from being reclassified as arriving aliens upon return. The case's influence extended beyond its immediate holding: courts adopted its purposive, context-sensitive interpretive approach to immigration terms of art and to avoiding statutory constructions that yield absurd or draconian outcomes. Although Congress later redefined "admission" and narrowed returning-LPR protections in IIRIRA (now codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(13)(C)), Fleuti retains doctrinal significance. It governs pre-IIRIRA conduct, informs retroactivity analysis (e.g., Vartelas v. Holder), and remains a key teaching vehicle for understanding exclusion versus deportation, statutory ambiguity, and factor-based standards in immigration law.