THE Superior Court yesterday ruled that the term “immediate relative” under the law includes “surviving spouses.”
Associate Judge Virginia Sablan-Onerheim discussed the “IR” issue in her decision, which finds Josephine V. Quitugua, as the surviving spouse of slain Police Officer Abraham S. Quitugua, an “IR” under the law.
Sablan-Onerheim said Josephine Quitugua’s IR status did not cease to exist upon the death of her husband.
The judge held that the basis of the Department of Labor and Immigration’s denial of Josephine Quitugua’s application for a non-alien IR entry permit was unlawful and should be set aside.
Sablan-Onerheim determined that the then acting director of immigration’s decision to disapprove Josephine Quitugua’s 706(D) permit, or non-alien IR entry permit, was not in accordance with the law.
“The court, however, remands the case to Immigration for a determination as to whether plaintiff meets all the other requirements imposed by Immigration and commonwealth law for plaintiff’s continued presence in the commonwealth,” the judge said.
The widow filed the lawsuit against the government and then Labor and Immigration Secretary Mark D. Zachares after her application for a non-alien IR entry permit was denied and she was ordered to leave the CNMI.
Josephine Quitugua, through counsel Jane Mack of the Micronesian Legal Services Corp., asked the court to declare that her “IR” status continues to exist. She requested the court to order DOLI to issue her a non-alien IR entry permit.
Court records showed that the plaintiff married Police Officer Abraham Quitugua on Saipan in 1981. In 1983, Abraham Quitugua died after being gunned down while on duty.
Josephine Quitugua returned to the Philippines and stayed there for several years. She returned to Saipan in 1991 and was issued a non-alien IR entry permit.
When her father died in 1994, she stayed in the Philippines to take care of her mother. On Feb. 20, 2000, she returned to Saipan.
After showing her expired non-alien IR entry permit, she was permitted to enter the island and was given a “tourist” entry permit with instructions from Immigration officials to get a new non-alien IR entry permit.
In a decision dated Nov. 13, 2000, then acting director of immigration, Thomas O. Sablan, denied Josephine Quitugua’s application for a non-alien IR entry permit, stating that her IR status did no exist.
Josephine Quitugua appealed, which Zachares denied. She then filed the lawsuit.
She filed a motion for summary judgment while DOLI also submitted a cross-motion for summary judgment.
Sablan-Onerheim cited a trial court’s ruling in the government’s case vs. Arriola that addressed the issue of whether a spouse continues to be the spouse of a deceased for purposes of determining immediate relative status pursuant to the law.
In the Arriola case, the respondent, a Philippine citizen, married a citizen of the commonwealth and obtained IR status based on her marriage.
Upon the death of her husband a few years later, the commonwealth filed an action for deportation contending that the death of respondent’s husband terminated her IR status and thus subjected her to deportation.
But the court in the Arriola case held that the respondent, after the death of her husband, remained an IR of the deceased.
Sablan-Onerheim said while she agrees with DOLI in Quitugua’s case that it is not bound by a trial court decision, it finds the rationale set forth in the Arriola case persuasive.
Sablan-Onerheim noted that the Arriola decision and its interpretation of the law has became a part of commonwealth jurisprudence because the Legislature has not amended the definition of “IR” to exclude “surviving spouses” since the Arriola decision was rendered in 1985.
“This court agrees with the trial court’s holding in Arriola that the death of a spouse does not operate to terminate a surviving spouse’s relationship to the deceased; and that he or she continues to be the spouse of the deceased, albeit a surviving spouse or widow or widower,” she said.
Based on the plain meaning of the law, the judge said a holder of 706(D) permit issued pursuant to the regulation is allowed to remain in the commonwealth on a yearly basis so long as the holder of the permit continues to be an IR of a non-alien.
The inclusion of the word “may” in the last sentence of the provision, however, makes it clear that renewal of the entry is not automatic, the judge said.
