Document: 502 U.S. 183 112 S.Ct. 551 116 L.Ed.2d 546 IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, et al., Petitionersv.NATIONAL CENTER FOR IMMIGRANTS' RIGHTS, INC., al. No. 90-1090. Argued Nov. 13, 1991. Decided Dec. 16, Syllabus Section 242(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) authorizes Attorney General to arrest excludable aliens and, pending a determination their deportability, either hold them in custody or release on bond containing conditions prescribed by General. Respondent individuals organizations filed suit District Court against petitioners, alleging that 8 CFR § 103.6(a)(2)(ii)—which is entitled "Condition unauthorized employment " generally requires bonds contain "condition barring employment" deportability determination—was invalid its face therefore could not be enforced even who may lawfully accept this country. Ultimately, held regulation was beyond General's statutory authority. The Appeals affirmed, ruling barred all employment, whether authorized unauthorized, exceeded his authority promulgating it because no-employment condition related purposes INA did provide for "individualized decisions" imposition as required statute. Held: consistent with Pp. 188-196. (a) No "as-applied" challenges nor any constitutional claims raised respondents' initial complaint are before Court. P.188. (b) does contemplate inclusion no-work issued work. Reading text's generic reference "employment" "unauthorized identified paragraph's title helps resolve ambiguity language. See, e.g., Mead Corp. v. Tilley, 490 714, 723, 109 2156, 2162, 104 796. Moreover, agency's interpretation applying only due deference. This conclusion further supported regulation's text, comments when rule promulgated, operating instructions Naturalization Service (INS) personnel, absence evidence INS has ever imposed alien 189-191. (c) wholly established concern immigration law preserve jobs American workers thus squarely within scope United States Witkovich, 353 194, 77 779, 1 765; Carlson Landon, 342 524, 72 525, 96 L.Ed. 547, distinguished. 191-194. (d) regulation, properly construed, viewed context INS' administrative procedures—an informal regarding an alien's status, right seek discretionary relief from secure temporary authorization, prompt judicial review conditions—provides individualized determinations contemplated 194-196. 913 F.2d 1350 (CA9 1990), reversed remanded. STEVENS, J., delivered opinion unanimous Stephen J. Marzen, Washington, D.C., petitioners. Peter A. Schey, Los Angeles, Cal., respondents. Justice STEVENS case presents narrow question construction. "containing such prescribe." 66 Stat. 208, amended, U.S.C. 1252(a)(1). We granted Government's petition certiorari decide "[w]hether th[at] provision prohibits promulgation requiring forbidding deportability." Pet. Cert. I. 2 * Prior 1983, regulations provided that, released deportation exclusion proceedings, discretion include obtained employment. 103.6(a)(2)(ii) (1982). In amended those following provision: 3 "(ii) Condition A shall included appearance delivery connection proceeding posted unless Director determines appropriate." (1991).1 4 effect, new made "no-employment conditions" rather than exception. 5 Several (respondents) action challenging validity grounds. Their alleged 6 After finding plaintiffs had fair chance success merits, ground statute authorize were irrelevant securing at subsequent hearing, violated process, entered nationwide preliminary injunction enforcement rule. affirmed part, but should limited named motion certify class. National Center Immigrants' Rights, Inc. INS, 743 1365 1984). 7 On remand, summary judgment favor respondents General, 644 F.Supp. (CD Cal. 1985), also certified class consisting "all persons have been future denied work pursuant 103.6." CV 83-7927-KN July 9, p. 1. again concluding "authority under 1252(a) which tend insure proceedings. peripheral illegal sufficient support every bond." 791 1351, 1356 1986). Government petitioned raising same now us. argued "unauthorized" aliens, merely added threat revocation already existing prohibition view then-recent enactment Reform Control 1986 (IRCA), 100 3359, cast serious doubt Appeals' undocumented "peripheral concern" laws, we vacated court's remanded consideration light IRCA. 481 1009, 107 1881, 95 489 (1987). adhered original impose "limited [conditions] aimed obtaining worker's proceedings." App. 68a. noted employer sanctions IRCA more difficult, concluded change broaden discretion. 9 divided panel majority rely Court's reasoning. 1990). first rejected 'unauthorized employment' "; construed "blanket condition" applicable well no Id., 1353-1358. then imposing subject two constraints. First, court ruled, must relate hearing protecting Nation danger posed active subversives. these purposes. 1358-1372. Second, concluded, basis rule" promulgated invalid. 1373-1374. 10 certiorari, 499 ----, 111 1412, 113 465 (1991), reverse. II 11 It appropriate preface our analysis noting narrowness us: inconsistent 12 observe framed challenge facial challenge. See 16-27. recognize possible improperly some aliens. That applied cases, however, mean facially without Cf. Hospital Assn. NLRB, 1539, 1547, 675 (1991); Skinner Railway Labor Executives' Assn., 602, 632-633, n. 10, 1402, 1421, 103 639 (1989). case, need do address regulation. 13 note invalidating contested relied solely grounds, reach plaintiffs' F.2d, 1358, 8. Accordingly, us none complaint. III 14 threshold concerns itself concedes, "is unambiguous." Brief Petitioners 23, 14. Indeed, dissenting judge suggested, much controversy avoided precise drafting initially response several lower opinions. 1375 (Trott, dissenting). 15 most critical proposed bar employment—stated another way, will lack authorization Although relevant paragraph Against Unauthorized Employment," text describes restriction broadly, employment." Based part latter phrase, interpreted unauthorized. contrast, contends place. 16 agree other contexts, stated section can aid resolving legislation's text. 796 (1989); FTC Mandel Bros., Inc., 359 385, 388-389, 79 818, 822, 893 (1959). Such obtains well. read title. reasonable, consistently own maintained implicates employment.2 17 Our regulation,3 promulgated,4 personnel,5 alien.6 Solicitor representation intend apply prohibit 18 decision today answer questions concerning having broader meaning ascribed Appeals. occasion consider subjected "no-work" condition. IV 19 grants prescribe."7 limited, cases similarly broad language scheme: 765 (1957), 547 (1952). 20 considered require deportable information about "circumstances, habits, associations activities, deemed fit proper." 242.3(c)(3) (1956). challenged seemed clearly words statute, Congress intended "questions reasonably calculated keep advised continued availability departure whose overdue." U.S., 202, S.Ct., 784. Relying given 21 differs Witkovich important ways. Writing Court, Frankfurter explained reasons placing limiting construction language: 22 "The 242(d)(3), if isolation literally, appears confer upon unbounded whatever he deems desirable effected six months after commanded. shrinks standing breadth words. But once tyranny literalness rejected, considerations giving rational content become operative. restrictive what appear plain indicated whole, persuasive gloss legislative history adjudication, would generate doubts." 199, 782. 23 argument proceeds assumption "Act whole"—including aliens—should define excise interest preventing scheme confine bonding purpose insuring presence hearings. raise "constitutional doubts" militate organic short, reliance misplaced. 24 below Carlson. upheld detention (under Internal Security 1950) members Communist Party they national security. narrowly, proposition exercise protect subversion. 25 reading too cramped. What significant simply "active subversion," fact enacted legislation based subversion Nation. sanctioned Congress' intent: "Detention [was] [the Act]. Otherwise arrested opportunities hurt during pendency 538, 533. Thus, policy justified congressional Communists constituted unacceptable 26 actual "to displacement States." 48 Fed.Reg. 51142 (1983) (citation omitted). often recognized "primary restricting workers." Sure-Tan, 467 883, 893, 2803, 2809, 81 732 (1984); see 1182(a)(14) (defining "seeking enter States, performing skilled unskilled labor" authorization).8 V 27 As supporting invalidation ruled Act. lawful level determination. Indeed judgments, legitimate impossible context. reached similar respect issue Carlson, findings "evidence membership plus personal activity extending [Communist] Party's philosophy violence g[ave] adequate detention." 541, 535. 28 However, believe complex regime law, provides above, affecting addition, personnel expressly state maintaining colorable claim citizenship condition, 5, supra "[a]liens asylum affected regulations." 51143. These facts substantially 29 enforcing make "an initial, [as to] holds status makes 'authorized.' 35. burden easily met,9 possess documents establishing status. Some so carry so-called "green cards," Saxbe Bustos, 419 65, 66-68, 272, 275, 42 231 (1974), others documents, 274a.12(a) (1991),10 registration numbers readily identify status.11 30 process enhanced additional provisions. 103.6(a)(2)(iii) establishes procedure individual authorization. conditions. §§ 3.18, 242.2 (1991). 31 Taken together procedures designed ensure detained receive mandated 32 For reasons, conclude reversed, proceedings opinion. 33 ordered. provides: "(iii) Factors considered. Only application 109.1(b) chapter establish compelling granting Among factors made, following: "(A) Safeguarding citizens permanent resident aliens; "(B) violations alien; "(C) Whether there reasonable considering relief; "(D) citizen spouse children dependent support, equities exist." 103.6(a)(2)(iii). regard, noteworthy presented as: "Whether 1252(a), allows alien, 'containing prescribe,' permits forbids engage O.T.1986, 86-1207, I (emphasis supplied). supports current taken position never interfere sentence states "unless places demonstrating appropriate, seems inconceivable determine "appropriate." rulemaking agency categorically "permanent Until time lost, bond. Service, therefore, intention 51143 (1983). "Individuals Citizenship 109.1(a)(1), general until final made." Operating Instruction 103.6(i) (Dec. 7, 1983). impossible, employ counsel obtain deportability. None them, she commencement her proceeding. 34-41. (Although one plaintiff employed years, allege id., 36.) Title pertinent part— "Apprehension "(a) Arrest custody; court; committing aggravated felonies; report Congressional committees "(1) Pending subsection section, may, warrant into custody. Except (2) [regarding mandatory convicted felonies], (A) (B) amount less $500 security approved prescribe; (C) conditional parole. parole, heretofore hereafter authorized, revoked discretion, returned initiated him Any competent jurisdiction revise detention, bond, parole conclusive showing habeas corpus dispatch warranted particular circumstances early statement policy, H.R.Rep. 1365, 82d Cong., 2d Sess. 50-51 (1952) (discussing INA's "safeguards labor"). forcefully recently notes "in rare where unable document status[,] likely merits grounds relief." 36, (citing 274a.12(c)(13)(iii) (1991)). sets forth various classes employment; each issues confirming Importantly, implementing issuance resolution amnesty 245a.2(n) realize effectively presumption over 97 percent apparently contest instead voluntary deportation, Lopez-Mendoza, 468 1032, 1044, 3479, 3486, 82 778 (1984), reasonable. subclass contested, cannot rebutted difficult resist is, course, reason exceeds

Category: 1