Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/634/207/454656/
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 20:27:09
Document Index: 781114433

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1182', '§ 706', '§ 1252', '§ 1201', '§ 1201', 'art, 311', '§ 1201', '§ 1182', '§ 1182', '§ 1503', '§ 1503', '§ 1', '§ 1503', '§ 1182']

Nikolaas "kallie" Knoetze, Plaintiff-appellant, v. the United States of America, the Department of State Etal., Defendants-appellees, 634 F.2d 207 (5th Cir. 1981) :: Justia
Justia › US Law › Case Law › Federal Courts › Courts of Appeals › Fifth Circuit › 1981 › Nikolaas "kallie" Knoetze, Plaintiff-appellant, v. the United States of America, the Department of S...
Nikolaas "kallie" Knoetze, Plaintiff-appellant, v. the United States of America, the Department of State Etal., Defendants-appellees, 634 F.2d 207 (5th Cir. 1981)
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit - 634 F.2d 207 (5th Cir. 1981)
The trial court has extensively described the facts and procedural history of this case. Knoetze v. United States, 472 F. Supp. 201 (S.D. Fla. 1979). We summarize them as follows.
Knoetze, a world-class boxer and former policeman from South Africa, came to the United States on a non-immigrant visa to take part in a prize fight. Knoetze then discovered through the news media that his visa had been revoked. The Secretary of State revoked his visa after concluding that Knoetze was convicted in South Africa of a crime corresponding to an American felony involving moral turpitude. The Immigration and Nationality Act renders such foreign convicts ineligible for a visa of entry into our country. 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a) (9).1
The proper standard of judicial review is expressed in the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 706(2). This is the limited standard of review applicable in the analogous context of deportation proceedings. Wong Yang Sung v. McGrath, 339 U.S. 33, 70 S. Ct. 445, 94 L. Ed. 616 (1950); Jarecha v. Immigration and Nationalization Service, 417 F.2d 220 (5th Cir. 1969). The relevant portions of this Act provide:
Under this limited standard of review, we can enjoin the revocation of Knoetze's visa only if the Secretary has violated the law or committed a clear error of judgment. Bowman Transportation, Inc. v. Arkansas-Best Freight Systems, Inc., 419 U.S. 281, 95 S. Ct. 438, 42 L. Ed. 2d 447 (1974); Refrigerated Transport Co. v. ICC, 616 F.2d 748 (5th Cir. 1980). Our standard of review is the same as that of the trial court.
Third, Knoetze argues that the provision of due process safeguards in the Attorney General's deportation authorization, § 1252(b), coupled with the absence of any such safeguards in the Secretary's visa revocation authorization, § 1201(i), indicates a legislative intention of assigning responsibility for handling aliens within our country to the Attorney General, rather than the Secretary of State. Knoetze bolsters this argument by noting that aliens within the country are constitutionally entitled to procedural due process, while those outside the country receive no constitutional protection. Shaughnessy v. United States, 345 U.S. 206, 73 S. Ct. 625, 97 L. Ed. 956 (1953). He contends that in recognition of this distinction, Congress provided procedural safeguards in the Attorney General's deportation authorization because Congress intended the Attorney General to have responsibility over aliens after their arrival. We disagree.
We accept the argument of the government that § 1201(i) means exactly what it says: the Secretary may revoke an alien's visa "at any time." We reject Knoetze's invitation to limit this clear and broad language. We must assume that Congress used the unambiguous words "at any time" as they are commonly understood, even if a different interpretation would yield a result we would prefer. United States v. Stewart, 311 U.S. 60, 61 S. Ct. 102, 85 L. Ed. 40 (1940); United States v. Porter, 591 F.2d 1048 (5th Cir. 1979). Moreover, we accord considerable deference to the interpretation of § 1201(i) by the Department of State, the agency empowered by Congress to administer the issuance and revocation of visas. E. I. duPont de Nemours & Co. v. Collins, 432 U.S. 46, 97 S. Ct. 2229, 53 L. Ed. 2d 100 (1977). We hold that Congress has conferred upon the Secretary the authority to revoke the visa of an alien "at any time," even after he has entered our country.
Strong evidence of the politicalization of an otherwise routine, bureaucratic decision might raise a suspicion of discriminatory agency action. In this case, however, it is indisputed that Knoetze pled guilty to the South African crime of "Attempting to Obstruct or Impede the Process of Justice." Those who have been convicted abroad of a crime equivalent to a felony involving moral turpitude are ineligible under the Immigration and Nationality Act to hold a visa for entry into the United States. 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a) (9).
The American consul in South Africa issued Knoetze a visa because it believed that his offense fell within the misdemeanor petty offense exception of this Act. 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a) (9). The Secretary later concluded that Knoetze's conviction corresponded to a conviction for a felony involving moral turpitude. Because South African law differs greatly from American law, the Secretary compared the South African crime of "Attempting to Obstruct or Impede the Process of Justice" to the federal crime of "Influencing or Injuring an Officer, Juror or Witness," 18 U.S.C. § 1503.3 The acts prohibited by § 1503 constitute a felony. See 18 U.S.C. § 1(1).4 The misdemeanor petty offense exception is therefore inapplicable. The fraudulent acts prohibited by § 1503 also indicate moral turpitude: "fraud has consistently been regarded as such a contaminating component in any crime that American courts have, without exception, included such crimes within the scope of moral turpitude." Jordan v. DeGeorge, 341 U.S. 223, 229, 71 S. Ct. 703, 706, 95 L. Ed. 886 (1951). The Secretary thus concluded that Knoetze was ineligible for a visa under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a) (9).
We must now determine whether the revocation of Knoetze's visa without notice complied with the due process rights guaranteed by the Constitution. The fifth amendment to the Constitution provides that "(n)o person shall be ... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." Fifth amendment protection extends to all persons, including aliens, within the borders of the United States. Kwong Hai Chew v. Colding, 344 U.S. 590, 73 S. Ct. 472, 97 L. Ed. 576 (1953). Yet fifth amendment protection attaches only when the federal government seeks to deny a liberty or property interest. Perry v. Sinderman, 408 U.S. 593, 92 S. Ct. 2694, 33 L. Ed. 2d 570 (1972); Downing v. Williams, 624 F.2d 612 (5th Cir. 1980).
Title 8, section 1182(a) (9) of the United States Code provides, in pertinent part: