Mullin v. Al Otro Lado · ¶113

The majority’s interpretation of “arrives in the United States” makes no sense. To start, the majority ignores that “arrival” and “arriving” in the immigration context have never focused on the precise location of a noncitizen’s feet. Instead, the majority concentrates on everyday examples of the phrase “arrives in.” Ante, at 8–9. The majority is right that its chosen examples are naturally read to require the person or item to be physically inside the relevant space. The terms “arriving in” and “arrives in,” however, do not always work that way. For example, a train conductor’s announcement, “We are arriving in Penn Station,” might mean that the train is inside the station or merely that it has started slowing down half a mile away. If someone said, “Call me when you arrive in Washington, D. C.,” it would be logical to call them once you have landed at DCA Airport, just across the…

slip opinion
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.