Scialabba v. Cuellar de Osorio
The court held that lawful residents in the United States who turned twenty-one while their visa applications were being processed could not retain their original application date after "aging out" of eligibility for child-visas.
573 U.S. 41 · No. 12-930 · 2013 term · Roberts Court
Decided Jun 9, 2014 · argued Dec 10, 2013
Civil rights · Immigration and naturalization: permanent residence
Majority opinion: Elena Kagan
The voteMajorityDissent
5–45 in the majority, 4 in dissent
4 dissents (5–4)
Reversed and remanded. Scialabba won.
What this ruling means
Reversed and remanded: the Supreme Court overturned the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit and sent the case back to that court for further proceedings that follow the Supreme Court’s ruling.
Scialabba was the petitioner, the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the case. “Won” means the Court gave that side the result it asked for.
From the Supreme Court Database. A justice who agreed with the result but not the reasoning counts in the majority.
Summary
The opening of the case’s Wikipedia article: what the case was about and what the Court held.
Scialabba v. Cuellar de Osorio, 573 U.S. 41 (2014), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that lawful residents in the United States who turned twenty-one while their visa applications were being processed could not retain their original application date after "aging out" of eligibility for child-visas. Those "aged out" were moved to the bottom of the list of applicants for adult visas. The Ninth Circuit Court had originally agreed that provisions in the Child Status Protection Act allowed applicants to retain their date.
Data notes
The text is Wikipedia’s (CC BY-SA 4.0), matched to the case by its citation, docket number or name and year, and is not checked against the opinion. The site keeps the article’s opening section, ending on its last full sentence. The one-sentence summary under the title is the Decisions list’s: Wikipedia’s own ruling sentence, or, tagged “AI-written”, one Claude wrote from this opening.
How the justices voted
Each justice who took part, placed by their Martin–Quinn ideology score for the 2013 term. Filled: the 5 in the majority. Hollow: the 4 in dissent. Colour is the party of the president who appointed them.
Majority(5)
Elena KaganWrote the majority opinion
John RobertsWrote a concurrence
Ruth GinsburgJoined the majority
Anthony KennedyJoined the majority
Antonin ScaliaJoined the majority
Dissent(4)
Sonia SotomayorWrote a dissent
Samuel AlitoWrote a dissent
Stephen BreyerJoined a dissent
Clarence ThomasJoined a dissent
Data notes
Each justice’s vote and what they wrote are from the justice-centered file of the Supreme Court Database. “Wrote a concurrence” means the justice sided with the majority and wrote separately; a justice who dissented in part is counted on the side they took overall. A justice who wrote nothing is listed as joining their side.
Positions are each justice’s Martin–Quinn score for the case’s term, the same scores as the Ideology page: negative is more liberal, positive more conservative. A score sums up a justice’s votes across the whole term, so it says where they usually sit, not why they voted as they did here. The median line is the Court’s median justice that term.
The parties
Who brought the case to the Court, who answered it, and how it got there.
- Petitioner
- ScialabbaGovernmental official, or an official of an agency established under an interstate compact (United States)
- Respondent
- Cuellar de OsorioAlien, person subject to a denaturalization proceeding, or one whose citizenship is revoked
- Reached the Court by
- Certiorari (the Court chose to hear it)
- Why it was taken
- Federal appeals courts had ruled differently on the question
Data notes
The names are the two sides of the case’s title. The description under each is the Supreme Court Database’s category for that party, in its own wording. The petitioner is the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the decision below. “Why it was taken” appears only when the majority opinion says lower courts disagreed or were unsure about the question; reasons that would fit any case (“to resolve the question presented”, “an important question”) are left out.
The law at issue
The law the Court was asked to apply, and the kind of power it used to decide.
- Provision
- Child Status Protection Act 116 STAT 927
- Kind of law
- Infrequently litigated statutes
- Decided by
- Interpretation of administrative regulation or rule, or executive order; Statutory construction
Data notes
The Supreme Court Database codes the main constitutional provision, statute or court rule each case turned on, and the basis of the decision: judicial review of a federal or state law, interpreting a statute, supervising the lower courts, and so on. A case can rest on more than one. “Overruled” counts only where the majority opinion says so.
Timeline
What happened at the Court and how the case got there, newest first.
- Jun 9, 2014DecidedDecided · Decided 5–4: reversed and remanded. Scialabba won.
- Dec 10, 2013ArguedArgued · Oral argument before the Court.
- Not datedTaken upTaken up · The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case (certiorari). Federal appeals courts had ruled differently on the question.
- Not datedCourt belowCourt below · Decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit: reversed, with a dissent.
- Not datedBeganBegan · The case began in the California Central U.S. District Court.
Data notes
From the Supreme Court Database: the court the case began in, the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed and what that court did, how the case came to the Court, and the dates of argument and decision. The database does not date the steps in the lower courts. Court names are the database’s.
Other decisions on the same issue
5 other argued cases since 1946 on immigration and naturalization: permanent residence, newest first.
- Blanche v. Lau146 S. Ct. 1981Jun 23, 2026 · 146 S. Ct. 1981Civil rights6–36–3 band
- Sanchez v. Mayorkas141 S. Ct. 1809Jun 7, 2021 · 141 S. Ct. 1809Civil rights9–0Unanimous band
- United States v. Texas579 U.S. 547Jun 23, 2016 · 579 U.S. 547Civil rights4–45–4 band
- Panagis Vartelas, Petitioner v. Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General566 U.S. 257Mar 28, 2012 · 566 U.S. 257Civil rights6–36–3 band
- Mrvica v. Esperdy, District Director, Immigration and Naturalization Service376 U.S. 560Mar 30, 1964 · 376 U.S. 560Civil rights6–36–3 band
Data notes
Every other orally argued case with a clear vote, from the 1946 term on, that the Supreme Court Database files under the same issue as this one. The database gives each case one issue from a list of about 270 (abortion, search and seizure of vehicles, the death penalty, and so on), whatever law it turned on.
Official record
Read the full opinion on Justia, the argument audio on Oyez and Wikipedia. Case data from the Supreme Court Database, Version 2026 Release 01, through the 2025 term.