Source: https://openjurist.org/420/us/619
Timestamp: 2017-09-26 04:42:25
Document Index: 92884578

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1101', '§ 1182', '§ 1251', '§ 241', '§ 241', '§ 1251', '§ 241', '§ 212', '§ 1182', '§ 316', '§ 235', '§ 1201', '§ 1201', '§ 241', '§ 212', '§ 212', '§ 211', '§ 1181', '§ 212', '§ 241', '§ 211', '§ 211', '§ 241', '§ 241', '§ 241', '§ 241', '§ 241', '§ 241', '§ 241', '§ 212', '§ 212', '§ 241', '§ 241', '§ 212', '§ 211', '§ 241', '§ 241', '§ 211', '§ 241', '§ 212', '§ 241', '§ 212', '§ 241', '§ 212', '§ 211', '§ 241', '§ 241', '§ 212', '§ 241', '§ 1251', '§ 241', '§ 211', '§ 1181', '§ 241', '§ 241', '§ 212', '§ 1182', '§ 212', '§ 241', '§ 7', '§ 7', '§ 7']

420 US 619 Reid v. Immigration and Naturalization Service | OpenJurist
420 U.S. 619 - Reid v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
420 US 619 Reid v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
95 S.Ct. 1164.
43 L.Ed.2d 501
Robert REID and Nadia Alice Reid, Petitioners,
In November 1971, the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) began deportation proceedings against petitioners, which were resolved adversely to them first by a special inquiry officer and then by the Board of Immigration Appeals. On petition for review, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit by a divided vote affirmed the finding of deportability. We granted certiorari to resolve the conflict between this holding and the contrary conclusion of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Lee Fook Chuey v. INS, 439 F.2d 244 (1970).1 419 U.S. 823, 95 S.Ct. 39, 42 L.Ed.2d 46 (1974).
Because of the complexity of congressional enactments relating to immigration, some understanding of the structure of these laws is required before evaluating the legal contentions of petitioners. The McCarran-Walter Act, enacted by Congress in 1952, 66 Stat. 163, as amended, 8 U.S.C. § 1101 et seq., although frequently amended since that date, remains the basic format of the immigration laws. 'Although the McCarran-Walter Act has been repeatedly amended, it still is the basic statute dealing with immigration and nationality. The amendments have been fitted into the structure of the parent statute and most of the original enactment remains undisturbed.' 1 C. Gordon & H. Rosenfield, Immigration Law and Procedure 1—13 to 1—14 (rev. ed. 1975).
Section 212 of the Act as amended, 8 U.S.C. § 1182, specifies various grounds for exclusion of aliens seeking admission to this country. Section 241 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1251, specifies grounds for deportation of aliens already in this country. Section 241(a) specifies 18 different bases for deportation, among which only the first two need directly concern us:
'Any alien in the United States . . . shall, upon the order of the Attorney General, be deported who—
The INS seeks to deport petitioners under the provisions of § 241(a)(2), asserting that they entered the United States without inspection.2 Petitioners dispute none of the factual predicates upon which the INS bases its claim, but instead argue that their case is saved by the provisions of § 241(f), which provides in pertinent part as follows:
'The provisions of this section relating to the deportation of aliens within the United States on the ground that they were excludable at the time of entry as aliens who have sought to procure, or have procured visas or other documentation, or entry into the United States by fraud or misrepresentation shall not apply to an alien otherwise admissible at the time of entry who is the spouse, parent, or a child of a United States citizen or of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence.' 75 Stat. 655, 8 U.S.C. § 1251(f). (Emphasis supplied.)
The language of § 241(f) tracks the provisions of § 212(a)(19), 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(19), dealing with aliens who are excludable, and providing in pertinent part as follows:
'Whatever the effect other misrepresentations may arguably have on an alien's being legally considered to have been inspected upon entering the country, we do not now consider; we are here concerned solely with an entry under a fraudulent claim of citizenship. Aliens who enter as citizens, rather than as aliens, are treated substantially differently by immigration authorities. The examination to which citizens are subjected is likely to be considerably more perfunctory than that accorded aliens. Gordon & Rosenfield, Immigration Law and Procedure § 316d (1966). Also, aliens are required to fill out alien registration forms, copies of which are retained by the immigration authorities. 8 C.F.R. §§ 235.4, 264.1; 8 U.S.C. §§ 1201(b), 1301—1306. Fingerprinting is required for most aliens. 8 U.S.C. §§ 1201(b), 1301—1302. The net effect, therefore, of a person's entering the country as an admitted alien is that the immigration authorities, in addition to making a closer examination of his right to enter in the first place, require and obtain information and a variety of records that enable them to keep track of the alien after his entry. Since none of these requirements is applicable to citizens, an alien who enters by claiming to be a citizen has effectively put himself in a quite different position from other admitted aliens, one more comparable to that of a person who slips over the border and who has, therefore, clearly not been inspected.'
When the INS discovered the fraud in each of these cases, it sought to deport both Errico and Scott on the grounds that they were 'within one or more of the classes of aliens excludable by the law existing at the time' of their entry, and therefore deportable under § 241(a)(1). The INS did not rely on the provisions of § 212(a)(19), making excludable an alien who has procured a visa or other documentation or entry by fraud, nor indeed did it rely on any other of the subsections of § 212 dealing with excludable aliens. Instead it relied on an entirely separate portion of the statute, § 211, 8 U.S.C. § 1181(a) (1964 ed.), prospectively amended in 1965,3 but reading, as applicable to Errico and Scott, as follows:
Section 211 of the Act of 1952, 66 Stat. 181—182, is entitled Documentary Requirements. Section 212 of the same Act, 66 Stat. 182—188, is entitled General Classes of Aliens Ineligible to Receive Visas and Excluded from Admission. INS could clearly have proceeded against either Scott or Errico under § 212(a)(19), on the basis of their procuring a visa or other documentation by fraud or misrepresentation. Just as clearly Scott and Errico could have then asserted their claim to the benefit of § 241(f), waiving deportation based upon fraud for aliens who had given birth to children after their entry and who were otherwise admissible. Instead the INS relied on the provisions of § 211(a), which deal with the general subject of the necessary documentation for admission of immigrants, rather than with the general subject of excludable aliens. Rather than questioning whether a failure to comply with § 211(a)(3) or (4) by itself rendered an alien 'excludable' as that term is used in § 241(a)(1), the Court in Errico implicitly treated it as doing so and went on to hold that § 241(f) 'saves from deportation an alien who misrepresents his status for the purpose of evading quota restrictions, if he has the necessary familial relationship to a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident.' INS v. Errico, 385 U.S., at 215, 87 S.Ct., at 475.
Aliens entering the United States under temporary visitor permits, who acquire one of the specified familial relationships described in § 241(f) after entry, have argued with varying results that their fraudulent intent upon entry to remain in this country permanently cloaks them with immunity from deportation even though they overstayed their visitor permits.4 Acceptance of this theory leads to the conclusion that § 241(f) waives a substantive ground for deportation based on overstay if the alien can affirmatively prove his fraudulent intent at the time of entry, but grants no relief to aliens with exactly the same familial relationship who are unable to satisfactorily establish their dishonesty. See Cabuco-Flores v. INS, 477 F.2d 108 (CA9), cert. denied sub nom. Mangabat v. INS, 414 U.S. 841, 94 S.Ct. 98, 38 L.Ed.2d 78 (1973); cf. Jolley v. INS, 441 F.2d 1245 (CA5 1971). Balking at such an irrational result, one court has gone so far as to declare that § 241(f) waives deportability under § 241(a)(1) even though no fraud is involved if the alien is able merely to establish the requisite familial tie. In re Yuen Lan Hom, 289 F.Supp. 204 (SDNY1968).
Nor has there been agreement among those courts which have construed § 241(f) to waive substantive grounds for deportation under § 212 other than for fraud delineated in § 212(a)(19) as to which other grounds are waived. While some courts have found that § 241(f) waives any deportation charge to which fraud is 'germane'5 others have found it waives 'quantitative' but not 'qualitative' grounds where its requirements are met.6 Still others have required that 'but for' the misrepresentation, the alien meet the substantive requirements of the Act7 while at least one court has discerned in Errico a test requiring that the aliens' fraudulent statement be taken as true, with determination on such hypothetical facts whether the alien would be deportable. Cabuco-Flores v. INS, supra, 477 F.2d at 110.
We do not believe that § 241(f) as interpreted by Errico requires such results. We adhere to the holding of that case, which we take to be that where the INS chooses not to seek deportation under the obviously available provisions of § 212(a)(19) relating to the fraudulent procurement of visas, documentation, or entry, but instead asserts a failure to comply with those separate requirements of § 211(a), dealing with compliance with quota requirements, as a ground for deportation under § 241(a)(1), § 241(f) waives the fraud on the part of the alien in showing compliance with the provisions of § 211(a). In view of the language of § 241(f) and the cognate provisions of § 212(a)(19), we do not believe Errico's holding may properly be read to extend the waiver provisions of § 241(f) to any of the grounds of excludability specified in § 212(a) other than subsection (19). This conclusion, by extending the waiver provision of § 241(f) not only to deportation based on excludability under § 212(a)(19), but to a claim of deportability based on fraudulent misrepresentation in order to satisfy the requirements of § 211(a), gives due weight to the concern expressed in Errico that the provisions of § 241(f) were intended to apply to some misrepresentations that were material to the admissions procedure. It likewise gives weight to our belief that Congress, in enacting § 241(f), was intent upon granting relief to limited classes of aliens whose fraud was of such a nature that it was more than counter-balanced by after-acquired family ties;8 it did not intend to arm the dishonest alien seeking admission to our country with a sword by which he could avoid the numerous substantive grounds for exclusion unrelated to fraud, which are set forth in § 212(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
In INS v. Errico, 385 U.S. 214, 87 S.Ct. 473, 17 L.Ed.2d 318 (1966), respondent evaded quota restrictions by falsely claiming to be a skilled mechanic. Once in this country, he became the parent of a United States citizen. We found Errico's deportation barred by § 241(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 66 Stat. 163, as added, 75 Stat. 655, 8 U.S.C. § 1251(f). In the instant case, petitioners evaded quota restrictions by falsely claiming United States citizenship. After settling here, they too became parents of United States citizens. Yet the Court today finds that § 241(f) is no bar to their deportation. Because I find no material difference between the instant case and Errico, I dissent.
Thus, Errico governs the instant case. The Court, however, distinguishes Errico on the ground that there deportation proceedings were based on § 211(a) (4) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1181(a)(4) (1964 ed.), which dealt with quota requirements, whereas here deportation is based on § 241(a)(2), which deals with inspection requirements. This distinction is grounded on the argument that § 241(f) tracks § 212(a)(19), 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(19), which deals with excludable aliens, and Errico was such an alien. But petitioners in the instant case were also excludable under § 212(a)(19), since they sought 'to enter the United States, by fraud.' Indeed the Court's entire approach was explicitly rejected in Errico itself:
Even if statutory language is unclear any doubt should be resolved in favor of the alien since 'deportation is a drastic measure and at times the equivalent of banishment or exile.' Fong Haw Tan v. Phelan, 333 U.S. 6, 10, 68 S.Ct. 374, 376, 92 L.Ed. 433 (1948). See also Barber v. Gonzales, 347 U.S. 637, 642—643, 74 S.Ct. 822, 825, 98 L.Ed. 1009 (1954); Errico, supra, 385 U.S., at 225, 87 S.Ct., at 480. Today the Court strains to construe statutory language against the alien.
The INS contends that if petitioners were to succeed in this case, 'the sky would fall in on the Immigration and Naturalization Service.'1 Apart from the lack of credible support for this dire prediction,2 if the Immigration and Nationality Act is indeed unworkable, the remedy is for Congress to amend it, not for this Court to distort its language and the cases construing it.
The legislative history of this provision, designed primarily to prevent the deportation of refugees from totalitarian nations for harmless misrepresentations made solely to escape persecution, is fully consistent with our interpretation of the provision. See H.R.Conf. Rep. No. 2096, 82d Cong., 2d Sess., 128 (1952), U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News, 1952, p. 1653; H.R.Doc. No. 329, 84th Cong., 2d Sess., 5 (1956); H.R.Doc. No. 85, 85th Cong., 1st Sess., 5 (1957); H.R.Rep. No. 1199, 85th Cong., 1st Sess., 10 (1957), U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News, 1957, p. 2016; 103 Cong.Rec. 15487—15499, 16298—16310 (1957); H.R.Rep. No. 1086, 87th Cong., 1st Sess., 37—38 (1961), U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News, 1961, p. 2950. The predecessor of current § 241(f), § 7 of the Immigration Act of 1957, 71 Stat. 640, was consistently described during debate by its supporters as making minor adjustments in the immigration and naturalization system. Congressman Celler, a sponsor of the bill enacting § 7, summarized it during House debate in these words (after summarizing a nonrelated provision of § 7):
'In contrast, there is no contemporaneous investigation of an alien who enters on a false claim of citizenship; there is unlikely even to be any record of such entry. It would therefore be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to determine whether such an alien was 'otherwise admissible at the time of entry." Brief for Respondent 10—11.
'. . . For example, when the alien misrepresents his identity during the visa issuing process, the information elicited from him is often valueless. When the fraud is discovered, the information derived from the visa process which was tainted by the misrepresentation, may be useless or have little or no bearing upon the ultimate disposition of the case.' Lee Fook Chuey v. INS, 439 F.2d 244, 250—251 (CA9 1970).