Source: http://supreme.nolo.com/us/395/62/case.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 01:52:07+00:00

Document:
Immigration and Naturalization Service, argues that respondent's claim was properly heard and determined by a district director. [Footnote 3] We brought the case here, 393 U.S. 912 (1968), to resolve the conflict on this score between the decision below and that of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Kordic v. Esperdy, 386 F.2d 232 (1967).
satisfied that the crewman intends to depart on the vessel or aircraft on which he arrived."
vessel or aircraft, if practicable, and such crewman shall be deported from the United States at the expense of the transportation line which brought him to the United States. . . . Nothing in this section shall be construed to require the procedure prescribed in section 242 of this Act to [sic] cases falling within the provisions of this subsection."
"Any alien crewman . . . whose conditional landing permit issued under § 252.1(d)(1) of this chapter is revoked who alleges that he cannot return to a Communist, Communist-dominated, or Communist-occupied country because of fear of persecution in that country on account of race, religion, or political opinion may be paroled into the United States . . . for the period of time and under the conditions set by the district director having jurisdiction over the area where the alien crewman is located."
by a special inquiry officer in accordance with the general provisions of § 242(b). The District Director ruled against respondent and, in the absence of any evidence of probable persecution, ordered him returned to the M/V Sumadija, which was then still in port.
Respondent immediately sought relief in the United States District Court for the District of Oregon, [Footnote 6] which, without opinion, temporarily stayed his deportation and referred the matter back to the District Director for a hearing on the merits of respondent's claim. On January 25, 1965, after a hearing at which respondent was represented by counsel and presented evidence, the District Director held that respondent "has [not] shown that he would be physically persecuted if he were to return to Yugoslavia." Appendix 22.
"Nothing in this section shall be construed to require the procedure prescribed in section 242 of this Act to cases falling within the provisions of this subsection."
Vucinic [and Stanisic] v. Immigration Service, 243 F.Supp. 113 (1965).
Respondent did not appeal the District Court's decision. Instead, in July, 1965, he petitioned Congress for a private bill, pending action on which the Service stayed his deportation. Respondent's effort proved unsuccessful, and, on June 21, 1966, the Service ordered him to appear for deportation to Yugoslavia.
"summary deportation aboard the vessel on which he arrived or, within a very limited time after that vessel's departure, aboard another vessel pursuant to arrangements made before . . . [his] vessel departed."
393 F.2d at 542-543. Since neither of these conditions was met, respondent could no longer be deported pursuant to the District Director's 1965 determination; he was entitled to a de novo hearing before a special inquiry officer under § 242(b) of the Act.
respondent -- and a determination whether to grant political asylum to an otherwise properly deportable alien.
Section 242(b) provides a generally applicable procedure "for determining the deportability of an alien. . . ." Section 252(b) provides a specific procedure for the deportation of alien crewmen holding D-1 landing permits. Neither of these sections is concerned with the granting of asylum.
"parole into the United States temporarily under such conditions as he may prescribe for emergent reasons or for reasons deemed strictly in the public interest any alien applying for admission to the United States. . . ."
No statute prescribes by what delegate of the Attorney General, or pursuant to what procedure, relief shall be granted under these provisions. By regulation, the decision to grant parole pursuant to § 212(d)(5) rests with a district director, 8 CFR §§ 212.5(a), 253.2, and by regulation, the decision to withhold deportation of most aliens pursuant to § 243(h) is presently made by a special inquiry officer. [Footnote 8] 8 CFR §§ 242.8(a), 242.17(c).
of the vessel renders § 252(b) inapplicable (a suggestion we consider and reject in Part III, below), then 8 CFR § 253.1(e) likewise becomes inapplicable.
Section 253.1(e) applies, however, to "[a]ny alien crewman . . . whose conditional landing permit issued under § 252.1(d)(1) [of 8 CFR] . . . is revoked" -- precisely respondent's situation -- and makes no reference to the departure, vel non, of the vessel. Granting that this regulation and its successor provision are not free from ambiguity, we find it dispositive that the agency responsible for promulgating and administering the regulation has interpreted it to apply even when the vessel has departed. E.g., Kordic v. Esperdy, 386 F.2d 232 (1967); Glavic v. Beechie, 225 F.Supp. 24 (1963), aff'd, 340 F.2d 91 (1964).
"[T]he ultimate criterion is the administrative interpretation, which becomes of controlling weight unless it is plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation."
Bowles v. Seminole Rock Co., 325 U. S. 410, 325 U. S. 414 (1945).
In sum, it is immaterial to the decision in this case whether § 252(b)'s exception to the § 242(b) procedure is, or is not, applicable to respondent. These two provisions govern only the revocation of temporary landing permits and the determination of deportability, and we reiterate that respondent does not contest the District Director's action on either of these scores. These sections do not state who should hear and determine a request for asylum. That is a matter governed by regulation, and, under the applicable regulation, the respondent received his due.
§ 242(b) hearing on his request for asylum was coextensive with his right to a § 242(b) hearing on his statutory deportability, and the case was argued here primarily on that basis. For the balance of the opinion, we thus make, arguendo, the same assumption. We conclude, contrary to the court below, that an alien crewman may properly be deported pursuant to § 252(b) even after his ship has sailed.
Section 242(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act provides a generally applicable administrative procedure pursuant to which a special inquiry officer determines whether an alien is deportable. See nn. 1 and | 1 and S. 62fn2|>2, supra.
"because of the necessity of freeing international commerce from unnecessary barriers and considerations of comity with other nations. . . ."
and create conditions incident to enforcement of the laws which have troubled the authorities for many years."
"Authority should be granted to immigration officers in a case where the alien crewman intends to depart on the same vessel on which he arrived, upon a satisfactory finding that an alien is not a bona fide crewman, to revoke the permission to land temporarily, to take the alien into custody, and to require the master of the vessel on which he arrived to detain him and remove him from the country."
Chen Fan Kwok v. Immigration Service, 392 U. S. 206, 392 U. S. 207 (1968).
Section 252(b) most plainly governs the situation in which a D-1 landing permit is revoked and the alien crewman is immediately returned to the vessel on which he arrived, which, by hypothesis, is still in a United States port. At the time of revocation, the crewman usually has not traveled far from the port, [Footnote 12] so the burden of transporting him back to the vessel is small; there is a readily identifiable vessel and place to return him to, and, during his brief shore leave, which cannot exceed 29 days, the crewman is unlikely to have established significant personal or business relationships in the United States. In short, the crewman's deportation may be expedited with minimum hardship and inconvenience to him, to the transportation company responsible for him, [Footnote 13] and to the Service.
These provisions contemplate that an alien crewman whose temporary landing permit is revoked pursuant to § 252(b) may be deported on a vessel other than the one on which he arrived. The other vessel should preferably be one owned by the transportation company which brought him to the United States, [Footnote 15] but, if this is not feasible, the Attorney General may order him deported by other means, at the company's expense.
contemplates that the alternative arrangement shall be made while the vessel upon which the crewman arrived is still in port. . . ."
393 F.2d at 546. Since arrangements for respondent's deportation had not been made before the M/V Sumadija departed, the § 254(c), and hence the § 252(b), procedures were no longer applicable: with the ship's departure, respondent became entitled to a hearing pursuant to § 242(b).
abort upon the departure of the crewman's vessel. If the crewman whose landing permit has been revoked pursuant to § 252(b) attacks the district director's action in a federal court, the court would usually stay his deportation pending at least a preliminary hearing. Even courts with dockets less crowded than those of most of our major port cities [Footnote 19] may not be able to hear the matter for several days or more, during which time the vessel may often have departed according to schedule. It requires little legal talent, moreover, to manufacture a colorable case for a temporary stay out of whole cloth, and to delay proceedings once in the federal courts. The Ninth Circuit's construction would thus encourage frivolous applications and intentional delays designed to assure that the crewman's vessel departed before the case was heard. Alternatively, it would so dispose federal judges not to grant stays that persons presenting meritorious applications might be deported without the opportunity to be heard.
may provide -- as he did in 8 CFR § 253.1(e), now 8 CFR § 253.1(f) -- that the crewman's request for political asylum be heard by a district director of the Immigration and Naturalization Service.
"The Attorney General is authorized to withhold deportation of any alien within the United States to any country in which in his opinion the alien would be subject to physical persecution. . . . [Footnote 20]"
The judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is reversed, and the case is remanded to that court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
A special inquiry officer is "any immigration officer who the Attorney General deems specially qualified to conduct specified classes of proceedings. . . ." Immigration and Nationality Act, § 101(b)(4), 6 Stat. 171, 8 U.S.C. 1101(b)(4). The special inquiry officer has no enforcement duties. He performs "no functions other than the hearing and decision of issues in exclusion and deportation cases, and occasionally in other adjudicative proceedings." 1 C. Gordon H. Rosenfield, Immigration Law and Procedure § 5.7b, at 5-49 (1967); see generally id., § 5.7.
"A special inquiry officer shall conduct proceedings under this section to determine the deportability of any alien, and shall administer oaths, present and receive evidence, interrogate, examine, and cross-examine the alien or witnesses, and, as authorized by the Attorney General, shall make determinations, including orders of deportation. . . . No special inquiry officer shall conduct a proceeding in any case under this section in which he shall have participated in investigative functions or in which he shall have participated (except as provided in this subsection) in prosecuting functions. Proceedings before a special inquiry officer acting under the provisions of this section shall be in accordance with such regulations, not inconsistent with this Act, as the Attorney General shall prescribe. Such regulations shall include requirements that --"
"(1) the alien shall be given notice, reasonable under all the circumstances, of the nature of the charges against him and of the time and place at which the proceedings will be held;"
"(2) the alien shall have the privilege of being represented (at no expense to the Government) by such counsel, authorized to practice in such proceedings, as he shall choose;"
"(3) the alien shall have a reasonable opportunity to examine the evidence against him, to present evidence in his own behalf, and to cross-examine witnesses presented by the Government; and"
"(4) no decision of deportability shall be valid unless it is based upon reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence."
A district director is the officer in charge of a district office of the Immigration and Naturalization Service. He performs a wide range of functions. See 1 C. Gordon H. Rosenfield, Immigration Law and Procedure § l.9c (1967); 8 CFR § 103.1(f).
"No alien crewman shall be permitted to land temporarily in the United States except as provided in this section. . . . If an immigration officer finds upon examination that an alien crewman is a nonimmigrant . . . and is otherwise admissible and has agreed to accept such permit, he may, in his discretion, grant the crewman a conditional permit to land temporarily pursuant to regulations prescribed by the Attorney General, subject to revocation in subsequent proceedings as provided in subsection (b), and for a period of time, in any event, not to exceed --"
"(1) the period of time (not exceeding twenty-nine days) during which the vessel or aircraft on which he arrived remains in port, if the immigration officer is satisfied that the crewman intends to depart on the vessel or aircraft on which he arrived; or"
"'D-1' and 'D-2' landing permits are permits issued pursuant to 8 CFR §§ 252.1(d)(1) and 252.1(d)(2), which implement §§ 252(a)(1) and 252(a)(2) of the Act."
26 Fed.Reg. 11797 (December 8, 1961). Effective March 22, 1967, the section was amended and redesignated § 253.1(f), 32 Fed.Reg. 4341-4342.
Because the District Director's determination was not pursuant to § 242(b), the District Court had jurisdiction to review his action. See Chen Fan Kwok v. Immigration Service, 392 U. S. 206 (1968); Stanisic v. Immigration Service, 393 F.2d 539, 542 (1968); Vucinic [and Stanisic] v. Immigration Service, 243 F.Supp. 113, 115-117 (1965); 5 U.S.C. § 1009.
This was not always so. Until 1962, the final determination was made by a regional Commissioner of the Service. 8 CFR § 243.3(b)(2) (1958 rev.); see Foti v. Immigration Service, 375 U. S. 217, 375 U. S. 230, n. 16 (1963).
The only substantial difference is that the regulation, but not the statute, is limited to Communist-inspired persecution.
For this reason, we have no occasion to decide whether or not respondent was "within the United States." Compare Szlajmer v. Esperdy, 188 F.Supp. 491 (1960), with Kordic v. Esperdy, 386 F.2d 232 (1967), and Glavic v. Beechie, 225 F.Supp. 24 (1963), aff'd, 340 F.2d 91 (1964). It may further be noted that § 243(h), by its terms, "authorizes," but does not require, the consideration of persecution claims.
This is responsive to the language of § 252(b). Permission to land terminates upon the vessel's departure, and thereafter there is nothing to "revoke."
"crewman granted a conditional permit to land under section 252(a)(1) of the Act . . . is required to depart with his vessel from its port of arrival and from each other port in the United States to which it thereafter proceeds coastwise without touching at a foreign port or place; however, he may rejoin his vessel at another port in the United States before it touches at a foreign port or place if he has advance written permission from the master or agent to do so."
In the latter case, the crewman may journey some distance from the port at which he arrived.
See infra this page and at 395 U. S. 76.
"All expenses incurred in connection with such deportation, including expenses incurred in transferring an alien crewman from one place in the United States to another under such conditions and safeguards as the Attorney General shall impose, shall be paid by the owner or owners of the vessel or aircraft on which the alien arrived in the United States. The vessel or aircraft on which the alien arrived shall not be granted clearance until such expenses have been paid or their payment guaranteed to the satisfaction of the Attorney General. . . ."
And, although we do not decide this question, § 254(c) would appear to allow the Attorney General to require security for the payment of anticipated expenses of deporting an alien crewman, even though no final arrangements have been made before the vessel that brought him departs.
See generally 1968 Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts Ann.Rep. Tables C, D, and X (1968).
See supra at 395 U. S. 68; Appendix 18-22 passim.
Respondent contends that his 1965 proceeding was infected with various constitutional errors, including the District Director's alleged bias and his combination of prosecutorial, investigative, and adjudicatory functions. Because that proceeding is not before us, and because we remand for a new hearing, we have no occasion to consider these arguments except to note that neither § 252(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act nor 8 CFR § 253.1(f), under which respondent will be heard on remand, is unconstitutional on its face. Likewise, it is premature to consider whether, and under what circumstances, an order of deportation might contravene the Protocol and Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, to which the United States acceded on November 1, 1968. See Dept. State Bull., Vol. LIX, No. 1535, p. 538.
of witnesses. Indeed, § 252(b) apparently does not require that the alien be given any hearing at all, but would seem to authorize an immigration officer to order immediate arrest and summary deportation on the basis of any information coming to him in any way at any time. The question before the Court is therefore not the apparently insignificant question suggested by the Court's opinion -- namely, whether this alien's case was properly determined by an official with one title, "District Director," rather than another title, "special inquiry officer." Instead, the question is the crucially significant one whether an alien seaman about to be forced to leave the country is entitled under the circumstances of this case to the benefit of safeguards that were carefully provided by Congress to insure greater fairness and reliability in deportation proceedings.
by crewmen against whom proceedings under Section 252(b) have been instituted." Brief for Petitioner 37. Thus, the regulations serve only to spell out the procedures to be followed under both § 242(b) and § 252(b), and do not even purport to specify when one of these sections, rather than the other, is in fact applicable. The fact that the Immigration and Naturalization Service has applied the regulation differently does not change this meaning. As the Court concedes, the regulation is "not free from ambiguity," ante at 395 U. S. 72, and of course the ambiguity in the regulation is precisely the same as the ambiguity in the statutory provision from which the wording of the regulation was drawn. It seems clear that the way in which the Service has applied the regulation has been determined by its interpretation of the statute, an interpretation that is in no way binding on us. Both the statute and the regulation are ambiguous, and there is no doubt in my mind that this ambiguity should be resolved in favor of the alien who is seeking a full and fair hearing. With all due respect, I think the Court's involved argument based upon the regulations, which goes beyond anything suggested by the Government itself in this case, provides no basis whatsoever for avoiding the fundamental question of statutory interpretation as to which of the two procedures, § 242(b) or § 252(b), was required to be followed in this case.
"The section [252(b)] exception [to the general procedural requirements of § 242(b)] is very narrowly drawn. It does not apply to the deportation of crewmen who have 'jumped ship' and entered the United States illegally, with no permit at all. As noted above, it does not apply to crewmen issued landing permits authorizing them to depart on vessels other than those on which they arrived. It does not apply to crewmen who have overstayed the twenty-nine day leave period without revocation of their landing permits. It does not apply to crewmen who were to leave on the vessel on which they arrived if their vessels have departed before their landing permits are revoked. In all of these situations, crewmen may be deported only in accordance with [§ 242(b)] procedures."
As the legislative history of the Act, quoted in the opinion of the Court of Appeals, shows, the special truncated procedure of § 252(b) was intended to be used only when the need for speed was truly pressing -- when the ship was about to leave port. But the seaman in this case was subjected to this truncated, summary procedure even though his ship had already gone and the need for haste in completing these important legal proceedings no longer existed. There is no reason to suspect that Congress wanted a seaman to be deprived under these circumstances of the vital procedural safeguards so carefully specified in § 242(b) of the Act.
"Pursuant to regulations prescribed by the Attorney General, any immigration officer may, in his discretion, if he determines that an alien is not a bona fide crewman, or does not intend to depart on the vessel or aircraft which brought him, revoke the conditional permit to land which was granted such crewman under the provisions of subsection (a)(1), take such crewman into custody, and require the master or commanding officer of the vessel or aircraft on which the crewman arrived to receive and detain him on board such vessel or aircraft, if practicable, and such crewman shall be deported from the United States at the expense of the transportation line which brought him to the United States. Until such alien is so deported, any expenses of his detention shall be borne by such transportation company. Nothing in this section shall be construed to require the procedure prescribed in section 242 of this Act to cases falling within the provisions of this subsection."

References: v. 
 § 252
 § 242
 v. 
 § 242
 § 212
 § 243
 § 252
 § 253
 § 252
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 252
 § 242

§ 242
 § 242
 § 252
 v. 
 § 252
 § 254
 § 252
 § 242
 § 252
 § 253
 § 253
 § 101
 § 5
 § 5
 § 103
 § 253
 § 242
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1009
 § 243
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 243
 § 252
 § 254
 § 252
 § 253
 § 252
 § 242
 § 252
 § 242
 § 252
 § 242
 § 252
 § 242