Source: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/353/72/
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 12:18:02+00:00

Document:
Petitioners, husband and wife, entered the United States in 1951 as alien seamen, and remained unlawfully after expiration of their limited lawful stay. In November, 1951, a child was born to them -- an American citizen by birth. In January, 1952, petitioners applied for suspension of deportation under §19(c) of the Immigration Act of 1917, which conditionally authorizes suspension of a deportation which "would result in serious economic detriment to a citizen . . . who is the . . . minor child of such deportable alien." The Board of Immigration Appeals found that petitioners were eligible for relief but, as a matter of administrative discretion, denied suspension of deportation, relying mainly on the fact that petitioners had established no roots or ties in this country.
Held: there was no error in the decision of the Board. Pp. 353 U. S. 73-79.
(a) The Board applied the correct legal standards in deciding whether petitioners met the statutory prerequisites for suspension of deportation. P. 353 U. S. 77.
(b) Suspension of deportation under the statute is a matter of discretion and of administrative grace, not mere eligibility; discretion must be exercised even though statutory prerequisites have been met. P. 353 U. S. 77.
(c) It was not an abuse of discretion to withhold relief in this case, since the reasons relied on by the Hearing Officer and the Board were neither capricious nor arbitrary. P. 353 U. S. 77.
(d) It was not improper or arbitrary for the Board, in exercising its discretion, to take into account the congressional policy underlying the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, though that Act was inapplicable to this case. P. 353 U. S. 78.
(e) The conclusion that the Board, in exercising its discretion, may take into account the current policies of Congress is fortified by the fact that § 19(c) provides for close congressional supervision over suspensions of deportation. Pp. 353 U. S. 78-79.
This is a habeas corpus proceeding to test the validity of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals denying petitioners' request for suspension of deportation.
deportation of such alien if he is not ineligible for naturalization . . . if he finds (a) that such deportation would result in serious economic detriment to a citizen or legally resident alien who is the spouse, parent, or minor child of such deportable alien. . . . [Footnote 2]"
would be to deprive others who are patiently awaiting visas under their already oversubscribed quotas. It is noted also that neither respondent reported his and her presence in the United States at any time until January, 1952, when they filed applications for suspension of deportation just two months after the birth of their child. . . ."
"It is obvious that the American citizen infant child is dependent upon the alien parents for economic support, care and maintenance. Documentary and other evidence establish good moral character for the requisite period. The aliens have no connection with subversive groups."
"As stated above, we have, in the instant case, a family consisting of two alien parents illegally residing in the United States and one American citizen child, age about two and one-half years. These respondents have been in the United States for a period of less than three years. Both arrived in this country as seamen. They have no other dependents or close family ties here. The record indicates that the male respondent may be able to obtain work as a Greek seaman and earn about $85 monthly."
discretion. We have carefully examined the facts and circumstances in the instant case, and we find that the granting of the maximum relief is not warranted by the record in the case. . . ."
a serious economic detriment to their citizen minor child, and we do not question that the respondents have established the statutory requirements for suspension of deportation. . . ."
"Upon our further review of the cases of the two respondents, we adhere to our previous decision that suspension of deportation should be denied as a matter of administrative discretion. . . ."
Taken into custody for deportation, petitioners instituted the present habeas corpus proceeding, alleging that the Board abused its discretion in denying their application for suspension of deportation. The District Court dismissed the writ, 133 F.Supp. 433, and the Court of Appeals, one judge dissenting, affirmed, 233 F.2d 705. We granted certiorari. 352 U.S. 819.
Nor can we say that it was abuse of discretion to withhold relief in this case. The reasons relied on by the Hearing Officer and the Board -- mainly the fact that petitioners had established no roots or ties in this country -- were neither capricious nor arbitrary.
suspension must be approved by Congress, and yet petitioners would have us hold that the Attorney General may not take into account the current policies of Congress in exercising his discretion. This we cannot do.
There being no error, the judgment is affirmed.
Under certain conditions, alien crewmen are permitted to enter the United States for periods not exceeding 29 days. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1281-1287.
8 U.S.C. (1946 ed., Supp. V) § 155(c).
"As hereinafter prescribed in this section, the Attorney General may, in his discretion, suspend deportation . . . in the case of an alien who --"
"(5) . . . has been physically present in the United States for a continuous period of not less than ten years . . . and proves that, during all of such period, he has been and is a person of good moral character; has not been served with a final order of deportation . . . , and is a person whose deportation would, in the opinion of the Attorney General, result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to the alien or to his spouse, parent, or child, who is a citizen or an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence."
"The bill accordingly establishes a policy that the administrative remedy should be available only in the very limited category of cases in which the deportation of the alien would be unconscionable. Hardship or even unusual hardship to the alien or to his spouse, parent, or child is not sufficient to justify suspension of deportation. . . ."
United States ex rel. Kaloudis v. Shaughnessy, 180 F.2d 489; United States ex rel. Adel v. Shaughnessy, 183 F.2d 371. Cf. Jay v. Boyd, 351 U. S. 345.
Petitioners would clearly be ineligible for suspension under the 1952 Act. See note 3 supra.
"If the deportation of any alien is suspended under the provisions of this subsection for more than six months, a complete and detailed statement of the facts and pertinent provisions of law in the case shall be reported to the Congress with the reasons for such suspension. These reports shall be submitted on the 1st and 15th day of each calendar month in which Congress is in session. If, during the session of the Congress at which a case is reported, or prior to the close of the session of the Congress next following the session at which a case is reported, the Congress passes a concurrent resolution stating in substance that it favors the suspension of such deportation, the Attorney General shall cancel deportation proceedings. If, prior to the close of the session of the Congress next following the session at which a case is reported, the Congress does not pass such a concurrent resolution, the Attorney General shall thereupon deport such alien in the manner provided by law. . . ."
8 U.S.C. (1946 ed., Supp. V) §155(c).
This case, on its face, seems to be an instance of a deportation which would "result in serious economic detriment to a citizen," as those words are used in § 19(c) of the Immigration Act of 1917.
The citizen is a five-year-old boy who was born here and who, therefore, is entitled to all the rights, privileges, and immunities which the Fourteenth Amendment bestows on every citizen. A five-year-old boy cannot enjoy the educational, spiritual, and economic benefits which our society affords unless he is with his parents. His parents are law-abiding and self-supporting. From this record, it appears that they are good members of the community. They do not seem to have done anything illegal or antisocial that should penalize their American son.
It would seem, therefore, that the maintenance of this young American citizen in a home in America is the way to effectuate the policy of the 1917 Act.
The Board did not treat the case that way. Instead, it imported into the 1917 Act the standard prescribed by the 1952 Act, which concededly is inapplicable here. That was the error which led Judge Frank to dissent below. 233 F.2d 705, 709, 710. I think Judge Frank was right. Prevailing congressional policy on the approval or disapproval of suspension orders in nowise affects the standards prescribed for administrative action under the 1917 Act.
The Board erroneously followed irrelevant standards instead of exercising its discretion under the applicable statute, viz. § 19(c) of the 1917 Act.

References: §19
 § 19
 § 155
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 §155
 § 19
 § 19