Lin Qi-Zhuo v. Doris Meissner, Commissioner, United States Immigration and Naturalization Service

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that if the plain language of the statute is clear, the court need not inquire further into its meaning, at least in the absence of “a clearly expressed legislative intent to the contrary”
• “[A]n item which is omitted from a list of exclusions is presumed not to be excluded.”
• “Where . . . the plain language of the statute is clear, the court generally will not inquire further into its meaning.”
• “An endlessly reiterated principle of statutory construction is that all words in a statute are to be assigned meaning, and that nothing therein is to be construed as surplusage.”
• “The legislative history seems, at best, inconclusive on the application of 245(a) to covered aliens, and in the realm of legislative interpretation, inconsistent history certainly cannot override plain language.”
• “An endlessly reiterated principle of statutory construction is that all words in a statute are to be assigned meaning, and that nothing therein is to be construed as surplus- age.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).