Document: 375 U.S. 217 84 S.Ct. 306 11 L.Ed.2d 281 Francesco FOTI, also known as Frank Foti, Petitioner,v.IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE. No. 28. Argued Oct. 17 and 21, 1963. Decided Dec. 16, James J. Cally, New York City, for petitioner. Philip R. Monahan, Washington, D.C., respondent. Mr. Chief Justice WARREN delivered the opinion of Court. 1 Involved in this case is single question whether Federal Courts Appeals have initial, exclusive jurisdiction, under § 106(a) Immigration Nationality Act, to review discretionary determinations Attorney General, relating suspension deportation, 244(a)(5) Act. 2 Petitioner, a 47-year-old alien native citizen Italy, last entered United States late 1950, through port Norfolk, Virginia, on seaman's visa which authorized him remain country period not exceed 29 days. He remained here illegally more than 10 years, leaving his wife three minor children Italy. In 1961, deportation proceedings were instituted against petitioner, directing appear before special inquiry officer Naturalization Service show cause why he should be deported 241(a)(2) Act 1952, 8 U.S.C. 1251(a)(2), an who had unlawfully overstayed been admitted. At hearing conducted 242(b) petitioner conceded deportability, applied, alternative, two forms relief General by grant deportable persons meet defined eligibility requirements. sought, pursuant ground that it would difficult earn living family Italy if result having liquidate bakery business owned operated Brooklyn, York. Alternatively, refused, requested, 244(e) privilege voluntary departure at own expense lieu deportation. The officer, although finding met good moral character years' continuous presence requirements 244(a)(5), denied application was ineligible form since 'in exceptional extremely unusual hardship * *.' Petitioner's alternative request granted, however.1 Petitioner appealed Board from part order Board, November 28, dismissed appeal. directed effect December 18, 1961. Prior date, commenced action District Court Southern York, seeking declaratory injunctive administrative refusal that, recently enacted 1105a(a),2 sole procedure obtaining judicial such determination petition filed appropriate Appeals. Accordingly, then sought Second Circuit. On September 1962, Appeals, sitting en banc five-to-four vote, lack holding term 'final orders deportation' does include denial 244(a)(5). Cir., 308 F.2d 779. Because conflict among regarding interpretation jurisdictional language s 106(a),3 we granted certiorari, limited jurisdiction final with respect during proceedings. 371 947, 83 503, 9 496. 3 issue involved solely one procedures incident present posture case, need concerned ultimate merits petitioner's deportability,4 concedes propriety has yet reviewed any lower federal court. only presented decision involves scope made course Specifically, must decide rather narrow statutory construction—whether those direct Both parties contended is. While free difficulty, evidenced division court below various matter, concluded erred not. 4 provision question, provides certain orders5 Communications Commission, Secretary Agriculture, Maritime Atomic Energy Commission shall 'apply to, for, all heretofore or hereafter aliens within section comparable provisions prior Section 242 detailed determining deported. Sections 243 244 relate situations may suspend discretion. its below, Circuit held applies required statute hearing, i.e., findings deportability. 5 Government urged reversed, so construed both adjudication deportability denying Based historical background Act,6 manifest purpose Congress enacting 106(a), context when viewed prevailing practices procedures, pertinent legislative history are led conclusion argued correct one. 6 1940, no discretion came category persons. expulsion person mandatory; avenue private bill Congress. Therefore, differentiation might 1940 between merely formalistic essentially meaningless. fact, necessarily resulted in, invariably accompanied by, order. Since however, given power circumstances cases,7 regulations force law provided practice ruling proceeding Service. Thus, historically consistently exercised integral issuance order, relief, requested hearing. hearings have, matter traditional uniform practice, same resulting Significantly, rendered all, even fact found deportable. 7 It knew familiar mind 106(a). These usages actually followed enacted, reasonably regarded composing legislation. A colloquy Congressmen Walter, Lindsay Moore, knowledgeable matters,8 definitely corroborative view. This occurred House debates predecessor 1961 contained 106(a).9 Representative suggested make absolutely clear 'that there remedy level left nature, will considered final.' Walter agreed, stated 'the means order.' With Moore concurring, congressmen agreed until after suspension. discussing running time filing petitions proposed legislation, months' finality applications just apply other brought up proceedings.' dissenters feel court's speculation few exchange unwarranted probably immaterial. can hardly meaning phrase unambiguous susceptible confined If anything, literal de ermined, effectively terminates proceeding. arriving intended construction language, therefore inevitably turn fundamental behind abbreviate process frustrate come attention Congress, whereby subject forestalling dilatory tactics courts. Judiciary Committee report succinctly problem addressed itself 106(a).10 indicated 'has disturbed recent years observe growing frequency actions being undesirable whose cases legal basis merit, but preventing delaying indefinitely their country.' Pointing essence problem, continued: 'Other aliens, mostly subversives, gangsters, immoral (persons), narcotic peddlers, manage protract stay because ill-gotten gains permit them procure services astute attorneys know how skillfully exploit process. Without reflection upon courts, undoubtedly now prevent enforcement repetitive appeals busy overworked courts frivolous claims impropriety key feature congressional plan elimination previous initial step review—a suit Court—and restriction certiorari As report, plain objective 'to create single, separate, *.'11 Further evidence specific intent give denials history. Case histories abuse existing process, summarized reports, references litigation arising out determinations. And reference chart reproduced reports shows antecedent constitutent deportation.' Although determined appeal initially seek short analysis reasoning demonstrates inconsistent agrees basic expedite successive fails case. Its bifurcated alien's admittedly without foundation. premised assumption rarely restraining orders. Reliance assumption, feel, unjustified.12 events, Government, obtain automatic simultaneously Review ancillary issue, time. We realize large number cases.13 But detracts our view proper 106(a).14 12 substance, wrong limiting adjudications 'term art' well-understood meaning, used several times §§ plainly referring rulings cannot substantiated. contemporaneously 244, different review. indicates distinguished regard especial relevance describing encompassed thereunder, specifically refers 242(b). 13 Paragraph (4) subsidiary exceptions record conclusive 'if supported reasonable, substa tial, probative whole.' However, mean restricted Admittedly, standard applicable former concededly paragraph clearly possibly relief,15 decisive inclusion 'exceptions' principal proviso primarily could indicate thus limited. certainly ingredient, indispensable one, proceeding—a deportation—it overall enactment primary constituent 14 Also, seems reviewable together withholding 243(h), likewise included ambit see nothing anomalous about change broaden available Appeals.16 Furthermore, do degree unlikely' judges Much setting aside arbitrariness disputed questions matters construction. Additionally, concern comport declared eliminate stage effort tactics. suggestion 'incredible' meant burden unconvincing. presumably realized practical effect, engaged hesitate adverse where proceeding.17 15 pass extends refusing reopen proceedings.18 somewhat denied. And, course, way impairs preservation availability habeas corpus relief.19 16 believe controlling intention 106( ), delays vesting 'all apparent consistent adjudicating passing proceeding, thinking using To construe constitute expansion words beyond meaning.' Bifurcation inconvenient; necessary fair language. passed expeditious Government. reversed remanded further consideration opinion. ordered. 18 Decision remanded. 19 HARLAN, concurring. 20 Believing kind circumspectly construed, cf. Kesler v. Department Public Safety, 369 153, 156—157, 82 807, 810—811, recognizing considerations majority 779, I am nevertheless satisfied leaves room reached. 21 concur judgment. granting outstanding combined contingent failed depart prescribed become effective automatically did date fixed Director. 106, added 5(a) Law 87—301, approved 26, 75 Stat. 651, (Supp. IV, 1962) 1105a. Compare Fong Service, 191 (C.A.9th Cir. 1962), Blagaic Flagg, 304 623 (C.A.7th Roumeliotis 453 cert. denied, 921, 288, 230, Holz 309 452 Zupicich Esperdy, 207 F.Supp. 574 (D.C.S.D.N.Y.1962), below. October 24, subsequent while pending 87—885, 4, 76 1247, date. provides, relevant part, amendment source General's eligible classes addition new subsection, states: '(f) No (1) crewman crewman, reached, argue 1962 agree rendering moot litigation. applicability situation arguable and, undisputed remains debatable still improper consider threshold Hobbs 64 1129 (1950), amended, 1031—1042, designated agencies. enactments Comment, 71 Yale L.J. 760 (1962). Regarding extent cases, see, e.g., Jay Boyd, 351 345, 354, 357—358, 919, 924—925, 926—927, 100 L.Ed. 1242 (1956). chairman subcommittee responsible immigration nationality matters, author chief sponsor measure consideration, respected leader whole area law. thoroughly problems role represented earlier, co-sponsor discussion member containing reported. 105 Cong.Rec. 12728. H.R.Rep. 1086, 87th Cong., 1st Sess. 22—23 (1961), U.S.Code Congressional Administrative News p. 2950. elucidating legislation floor House, bills 1958, stated: 'Most important, eliminating district obviate causes delay arise proceeding.' 104 17173. According Counsel Service's policy sua sponte, 'patently frivolous.' See 111 U. Pa.L.Rev. 1226, 1230 (1963). Consequently, temporary issued usually unnecessary frequently irrelevant. (unless issued) deporting pendente lite, expedited permitting unwarranted. disposition appears unjustified. See, (D.C.S.D.N.Y.1962). Deportability 80% cases. Gordon Rosenfield, Procedure, 5.7a, 541 Even so, bifurcation type prompted sought. here, Government's contention adjudicated, 'pendent jurisdiction' instant requirement met, matter. exercise finds statutorily suspension, (or exercise) properly distinct separate matters. law, read require based substantial record. 1229 here. discretion, procedural evidentiary requisites (4). When 243(h) official conducting later occasion, promulgated designation warrant Under revised currently regulations, wish effected reflected covered enactment, seem incongruous assume orders, making decisions reach 106(a)'s provisions. Such simply now, deportation,' processing incidental expanding decisional content Clearly, changes affect types agency embraced Compare, F.2d, 785, n. 6, referred 'inarticulate premise suits *' manifested find door opened 785. brief close though occurring Brief respondent, pp. 51—54. Giova Rosenberg, 347 pending, 15, Misc., Term, Cf. Dentico 303 137 (C.A.2d Cir, motions proceedings, 106(c) purporting restrict 106(a)(9) custody

Category: 1