Opinion ID: 2446
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: United Airlines: Pre-1996 Tourist Regulation and the Parole Policy

Text: United Airlines (United) has challenged the INS's imposition of a fine for bringing a non-immigrant who did not possess a valid passport and/or visa needed for entry into the United States. In 1994, United transported a Mongolian citizen into the United States for purposes of his catching a connecting flight to Montreal. The INS deemed the Mongolian citizen inadmissible, but it nonetheless paroled him into the United States so that he could travel on to Canada. The INS then fined United for violating the Penalty Statute by bring[ing] to the United States... any alien who does not have a valid passport and an unexpired visa. 8 U.S.C. § 1323(a)(1); see also United Airlines, Inc. v. Jones, 337 F. Supp. 2d 406, 408 (E.D.N.Y. 2004). United challenged the fine. It claimed that the Penalty Statute did not apply because the alien qualified for an emergency waiver, and if the alien had received a waiver no fine could have been imposed. At the time, the emergency waiver regulation stated that [a] visa and a passport are not required of a non-immigrant who demonstrates an unforeseen emergency. 8 C.F.R. § 212.1(g) (pre-1996). The Penalty Statute prohibits transporting an undocumented alien if a visa was required under this chapter or regulations issued thereunder. 8 U.S.C. § 1323(a)(1). Under the controlling BIA precedent at the time, the relevant language of the emergency waiver regulationare not requirednegated application of the Penalty Statute in those cases where the visa requirement was waived because the alien demonstrated an unforeseen emergency. United also argued that the INS had adopted a policy to parole aliens, such as the Mongolian citizen, into the United States, rather than waive the visa requirement and admit them, so as to preserve its ability to apply the Penalty Statute and collect a fine. It claimed that this policy was illegal and violated the Administrative Procedures Act (the APA). As framed by the district court, the question before it was whether the defendant (the INS) acted lawfully in granting parole rather than a waiver to an arriving undocumented non-immigrant alien and imposing a fine upon the transportation company (the airline) for bringing that alien to our shores. United Airlines, 337 F. Supp. 2d at 409. The district court answered that question in the affirmative, finding the INS's challenged action lawful. The district court first addressed United's claim that the INS had adopted a policy of paroling aliens into the United States rather than waiving the visa requirement to legitimize the imposition of fines which the grant of waivers would have precluded. Id. The court found that under the Penalty Statute, the airline incurs liability for the fine when it brings an undocumented alien into the United States, notwithstanding any waiver or grant of parole that might occur after the alien has arrived. It was prepared to grant summary judgment to the INS on this basis alone, but it addressed the parties' arguments nonetheless, in part to comment on the BIA's questionable interpretations of the relevant regulations. Id. at 411. The BIA had held in its adjudications that, where a regulation purported to nullify the visa requirement in the event of waiver, such as by stating that the alien is not required to present a visa if in his particular case a waiver of the visa requirement is granted, the Penalty Statute did not apply. Matter of Plane CCA CUT-532, 6 I. & N. Dec. 262, 264 (BIA 1954). The BIA had reached this conclusion based on the Penalty Statute's restriction of its application to those cases where a visa was required. [4] The district court found this reasoning wholly unpersuasive, as it believed that even in these nullification instances, a visa was required for purposes of considering a particular case under the Penalty Statute. Otherwise, asked the court rhetorically, why was it necessary for those documents to be waived? United Airlines, 337 F. Supp. 2d at 412. Considering the text of the Penalty Statute, the court noted that the statute applied if a visa was required under the Act or implementing regulations. The Act expressly requires non-immigrants to be in possession of a valid nonimmigrant visa, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(7)(B)(i)(II), further providing that the visa requirement may be waived... on the basis of unforeseen emergency in individual cases, id. § 1182(d)(4)(A). The district court found these statutory provisions unambiguous. United Airlines, 337 F. Supp. 2d at 411. The court held that the BIA had misinterpreted the phrase or the regulations issued thereunder in the Penalty Statute in a manner that was plainly inconsistent with the intent of Congress. Id. The unambiguous Penalty Statute established the liability of an airline at the moment it brings an undocumented alien to the United States. Id. at 413. Such a reading, the court declared, advances the recognized intent of Congress in enacting it. Id. The court applied the statutory and regulatory scheme temporally, to wit: the airline violates the Penalty Statute and becomes liable for the fine when it brings an undocumented alien to the United States, even though, at a later time, the INS might waive the visa requirement with respect to that individual alien. According to the district court, the BIA's interpretation to the contrary abort[ed] the intent of Congress as clearly reflected in the statutory text. Id. at 414. It cited to the House Judiciary Committee report on the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) of 1952, in which the Committee stated that it had substantially curtailed the INS's authority to waive the visa requirement to preclude the granting of blanket waivers of the documentary requirements on the ground of the existence of an emergency. Id. (quoting H.R. Rep. No. 82-1365, at 57, as reprinted in 1952 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1653, 1706-07) (emphasis omitted). Furthermore, reasoned the court, waiving the visa requirement is meant to benefit only the alien, not the airline. Drawing on case law, it found its conclusion strengthened by Hamburg-American Line v. United States, 291 U.S. 420 (1934), and Peninsular & Occidental Steamship Co. v. United States, 242 F.2d 639 (5th Cir. 1957). In Hamburg, the Supreme Courtinterpreting the Penalty Statute's predecessorhad held that a carrier's liability remained unaffected by any subsequent discretionary admission of the alien. 291 U.S. at 426. In Peninsular & Occidental, the Fifth Circuit held that the grant of a waiver to an alien otherwise within the class of aliens who must have a passport and visa to enter the United States did not negate the carrier's liability for bringing the alien to the United States without such documents. 242 F.2d at 641-42. The district court found further support in the third clause of the Penalty Statute, which states that the fine shall not be remitted or refunded, unless it appears to the satisfaction of the Attorney General that such person... prior to the departure of the vessel or aircraft from the last port outside the United States, did not know, and could not have ascertained by the exercise of reasonable diligence, that the individual transported was an alien and that a valid passport or visa was required. 8 U.S.C. § 1323(c). The court noted that the term remit means to refrain from exacting a payment, and it determined that a fine is either forgiven or refunded only if the carrier, prior to departure, could not ascertain with reasonable diligence that the alien it was transporting required a visa or a passport. United Airlines, 337 F. Supp. 2d at 417. On the question of whether it should defer to the BIA's interpretation of the statute under Chevron, the district court concluded that [i]t is beyond cavil that the `intent of Congress is clear' and that should be the end of the matter. Id. at 418. [T]he construction placed upon the assorted Regulations by the Board of Immigration Appeals has been clearly contrary to [Congress's] intent [and] must be, and hereby [is], rejected. Id. After noting that it had considered all of United's other arguments and found them to be without merit, the district court ruled in favor of the INS, upholding the fine assessed against United for the transportation of an improperly documented Mongolian citizen. Id. at 419.