Mullin v. Al Otro Lado · ¶162
The central question, then, is whether Congress intended to narrow the scope of §1158(a)(1) to only noncitizens who stepped foot across the border when, in enacting IIRIRA, it amended the Refugee Act’s language to the current “arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival . . . )” language. Given that §1158(a)(1) was originally enacted to comply with the United States’ treaty obligations under the 1967 Protocol, it would be strange to construe Congress as abdicating those obligations with this amendment without any affirmative indication that it sought to do so. Congress, after all, “‘does not alter the fundamental details’ of an existing scheme with ‘vague terms’ and ‘subtle device[s].’” Hall v. Hall, 584 U. S. 59, 74 (2018). Nor does this Court normally presume that Congress intends to depart from its international obligations. Cf. Mur ray v. Schooner…Read in context ›
slip opinion
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.