Opinion ID: 3013677
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: N.S. v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 330

Text: administering lethal injections. The (1992) (Scalia, J., concurring and Supreme Court determined that there was dissenting). As Yueh-Shaio Yang holds, “no law to apply” in the Federal Food, the judicial review provisions of the APA, 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A), apply to decisions of the BIA on issues not committed to agency discretion. Yueh-Shaio Yang, 519 U.S. at 32. 16 Drug, and Cosmetic Act against which a These criteria are clearly intended court could review the FDA’s decision not to require the single BIA member to to bring enforcement proceedings. Id. at determine whether the correct outcome 830-31. was reached and, if so, whether a Board opinion would have significant value in Under the streamlining regulations, the context of an appeal of the matter or in in contrast, in order to affirm without an the context of other matters yet to be opinion, several specific criteria must be adjudicated. We agree with the Tenth met: (1) the “result reached in the decision Circuit Court of Appeals that “they have under review [must be] correct;” (2) any nothing to do with the BIA’s caseload or “errors in the decision under review [must other internal circumstances.” Batalova v. be] harmless or nonmaterial; and (3) “(A) Ashcroft, 355 F.3d 1246, 1253 (10th Cir. [t]he issues on appeal [must be] squarely 2004); see also Denko v. I.N.S., 351 F.3d controlled by existing Board or federal 717, 732 (6th Cir. 2003) (“the size of the court precedent and . . . not involve the BIA’s caseload–a factor which the Board application of precedent to a novel factual may be better equipped to assess–has no situation” or “(B) [t]he factual and legal relevance in deciding which cases are issues raised on appeal [must be] not so appropriate for summary affirmance”). substantial that the case warrants the Rather, these criteria present “the kinds of issuance of a written opinion in the case.” issues [courts] routinely consider in 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(e)(4)(i). All three of reviewing cases,” Batalova, 355 F.3d at these criteria must be met in order for a 1253, and provide amply sufficient “law” case properly to be streamlined.8 for courts to apply. The fact that they may require the exercise of some discretion on the part of the single BIA member that 8 may be deserving of some deference is, of Heckler also noted that at issue there course, not relevant; the APA expressly was the reviewability of an agency’s authorizes review of the exercise of refusal to exercise its powers, as opposed discretion for abuse. to where, as here, an agency has exercised its coercive power over an individual. See The government’s insistence that § Heckler, 470 U.S. at 832 (“[W]e note that 1003.1(e)(4)(i) requires a single BIA when an agency refuses to act it generally member to assess the availability of does not exercise its coercive power over agency resources is based upon subsection an individual’s liberty or property rights, B and its reference to whether the “issues and thus does not infringe upon areas that raised upon appeal are not so substantial courts often are called upon to protect. that the case warrants the issuance of a Similarly, when an agency does act to enforce, that action itself provides a focus for judicial review, inasmuch as the agency must have exercised its power in some manner.”) (emphasis in original). 17 written opinion,” id. § 1003.1(e)(4)(i)(B). will be assigned to a three member panel However, this language focuses upon the for disposition. If the case is more lack of importance of the issues, not significant than an (e)(4) case and less backlog and the availability of resources to significant than an (e)(6) case, the single produce an opinion. Moreover, the BIA member will decide the merits of the government’s argument ignores the fact appeal by himself and issue “a brief order, that § 1003.1(e)(4)(i) is only one part of an affirming, modifying or remanding” under overall case management system that is § 1003.1(e)(5). In short, the regulations do based solely on the correctness of the not call upon single BIA members to result and the institutional value that an evaluate the resources available at a opinion would have. Under subsection particular time. Rather, the regulations 1003.1(e), a single BIA member who is themselves allocate whatever decisionassigned a case “shall” do one of three making resources the agency has, calling things. If the result is correct and the upon single BIA members to follow the institutional value of an opinion would be criteria contained in the regulations for so low that the criteria of (e)(4) are met, he allocating those resources. must affirm without opinion. On the other hand, if the case presents one of the Nor are we impressed with the c i r c u m s ta n c e s e n u m e r a t e d in § gove r n m e nt’ s sugg estion th at § 1003.1(e)(6), all relating to the institutional value of an opinion,9 the case