15-1803. Alien in-state student status; nonresident tuition exemption
(Caution: 1998 Prop. 105 applies)
A. An alien is entitled to classification as an in-state refugee student if the person has been granted refugee status in accordance with all applicable laws of the United States and has met all other requirements for domicile.
B. Notwithstanding any other law, a student, other than a nonimmigrant alien as described in 8 United States Code section 1101(a)(15), who meets both of the following requirements is eligible for in-state tuition at any university under the jurisdiction of the Arizona board of regents or at any community college as defined in section 15-1401:
1. Attended any public or private high school option or homeschool equivalent pursuant to section 15-802 while physically present in this state for at least two years.
2. Graduated from any public or private high school option or homeschool equivalent pursuant to section 15-802 while physically present in this state or obtained a high school equivalency diploma in this state.
C. Persons without lawful immigration status are eligible for in-state tuition pursuant to subsection B of this section.
Notes of Decisions
State v. Maricopa Cnty. Cmty. Coll. Dist. Bd., 416 P.3d 803 (Ariz. 2018).
· cites it 6× “" Indeed, the voters attempted to do just the opposite when they enacted A.R.S. § 15-1803, which provides that "a person who was not a citizen or legal resident .”
Rep Andrew Tobin v. Hon Rea, 291 P.3d 983 (Ariz. 2013).
“§ 15-1803(B) (providing that “a person who was not a citizen or legal resident of the United States or who is without lawful immigration status is not entitled to classification as an in-state student pursuant to section 15-1802 or entitled to classification as a county resident…”
State v. McCcd (Ariz. Ct. App. 2017).
· cites it 44× “Preemption of A.R.S. §§ 15-1803 & -1825 ¶37 The Students argue Arizona’s statutes codifying Prop 300 are preempted by federal law.”
State v. Az Regents (Ariz. Ct. App. 2019).
· cites it 2× “Count VI alleged ABOR had, by directing or otherwise permitting the universities in question to offer in-state tuition to students who were not "lawfully present" for purposes of eligibility for in-state tuition or other state or local public benefits, violated A.R.S. §§…”
Foss v. Abor (Ariz. Ct. App. 2019).
· cites it 2× “¶7 Section 1623’s prohibition was incorporated into Arizona law at A.R.S. § 15-1803(B), which directs that “a person who was not a citizen or legal resident of the United States or who is without lawful immigration status is not entitled to classification as an in-state student…”
State of Arizona Ex Rel Brnovich v. Abor (Ariz. 2020).
· cites it 2× “Count VI alleges that by subsidizing in-state tuition for students who are not “lawfully present,” ABOR violated A.R.S. §§ 15-1803(B) and -1825(A), failed to collect monies as required by A.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 15-1803(A) — 2 cases
State v. McCcd (Ariz. Ct. App. 2017).
“Preemption of A.R.S. §§ 15-1803 & -1825 ¶37 The Students argue Arizona’s statutes codifying Prop 300 are preempted by federal law.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 15-1803(B) — 7 cases
State v. Maricopa Cnty. Cmty. Coll. Dist. Bd., 416 P.3d 803 (Ariz. 2018).
“" Indeed, the voters attempted to do just the opposite when they enacted A.R.S. § 15-1803, which provides that "a person who was not a citizen or legal resident .”
Rep Andrew Tobin v. Hon Rea, 291 P.3d 983 (Ariz. 2013).
“§ 15-1803(B) (providing that “a person who was not a citizen or legal resident of the United States or who is without lawful immigration status is not entitled to classification as an in-state student pursuant to section 15-1802 or entitled to classification as a county resident…”
State v. McCcd (Ariz. Ct. App. 2017).
“Preemption of A.R.S. §§ 15-1803 & -1825 ¶37 The Students argue Arizona’s statutes codifying Prop 300 are preempted by federal law.”
State v. Az Regents (Ariz. Ct. App. 2019).
“Count VI alleged ABOR had, by directing or otherwise permitting the universities in question to offer in-state tuition to students who were not "lawfully present" for purposes of eligibility for in-state tuition or other state or local public benefits, violated A.R.S. §§…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.