Opinion ID: 484315
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: As Applied to Deportation Proceedings

Text: 44 Deportation proceedings clearly are adjudications of the type referred to in section 554. Section 242 of the INA establishes that a [d]etermination of deportability in any case shall be made only upon a record made in a proceeding before a special inquiry officer, at which the alien shall have a reasonable opportunity to be present. 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1252(b) (1982). Deportation proceedings, hence, meet the standard for an adjudication set forth in section 554: The enabling statute requires a determination on the record and a prior opportunity for an agency hearing. 45 Moreover, other procedures and principles that govern deportation proceedings parallel the incidents of agency adjudication dictated by section 554. Both the INA and section 554 require notice of the time, place, and nature of the hearings. Compare 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1252(b)(1) with 5 U.S.C. Sec. 554(b)(1). Similar provisions for an opportunity to submit facts, arguments, offers of settlement, and other proposals set forth in section 554, exist under the INA. Compare 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1252(b) with C.F.R. 242.16(a)-(d). 46 Deportation proceedings, hence, are not only of the type referred to in subsection 554(a) but are governed by procedural requirements that are similar to those governing proceedings directly subject to that section. The similarity is not surprising since, as the Supreme Court explained in Marcello, the framework of the [INA] indicates clearly that the Administrative Procedure Act was being used as a model. 349 U.S. at 309, 75 S.Ct. at 761. The Marcello court considered all of the differences in the hearing provisions of the two Acts. Id., at 306, 75 S.Ct. at 760. Some of the provisions of the INA, naturally, deal with matters peculiar to deportation proceedings and, consequently, have no direct analogues in the APA. Otherwise, the Supreme Court found significant differences only in the statutes' definitions of the functions of the hearing officer. 8 However, amendments to immigration regulations have virtually eliminated the distinctions between the APA's and the INA's respective definitions of the role of that officer. 9 Thus, the hearing provisions of the INA and those of the APA are currently fundamentally identical. 47 Deportation hearings, in fact, are quintessentially the type of proceedings that the framers of the EAJA were concerned about. Aliens usually find themselves in an even more difficult position than other individuals when confronted by the overpowering arm of the state. Aliens' lack of familiarity with the English language and with the details of our legal system reduces significantly their ability to resist illegitimate official coercion. 48 It would be wholly inconsistent with the purposes of the EAJA to exclude proceedings, such as immigration proceedings, in which individuals have fundamental interests at stake that the government is attacking in a complex and adversarial hearing. The complexity of deportation proceedings goes beyond the fact that they embody the features listed in section 554. Both sides present evidence and interrogate, examine, and cross-examine the witnesses. 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1252(b) (1982). The immigration judge is required to base the decision of deportability on reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence. 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1252(b)(4) (1982). And the proceedings involve the intricate laws of the INA, which resemble King Minos's labyrinth in ancient Crete. Lok v. INS, 548 F.2d 37, 38 (2nd Cir.1977). 49 Deportation, hence, involves a substantially complex proceeding. For aliens to secure their rights it is often necessary for them to have counsel. The facts of the controversy before us provide a case in point. At the deportation proceeding before the immigration judge, Escobar Ruiz appeared pro se. He admitted the allegations in the order to show cause and the immigration judge found him deportable. Escobar Ruiz did not request asylum. 50 Escobar Ruiz decided to press for his rights only after he obtained assistance of current pro bono counsel. Through his counsel, he filed a notice of appeal with the BIA and a motion to reopen in which he sought asylum and prohibition against deportation. Though the INS initially succeeded in convincing the BIA to deny the motion to reopen, the government subsequently reversed its position after this court, at the time of oral argument, expressed strong concern regarding the INS's conduct through the proceedings below. Escobar Ruiz v. INS, 787 F.2d 1294, 1296 (9th Cir.1986). The BIA promptly reopened the proceedings. 51 By enacting the EAJA, Congress sought to provide relief for individuals in precisely the situation that aliens often find themselves in during deportation hearings: overpowered and overwhelmed by the state. Making the EAJA applicable in deportation hearings cannot but advance the purposes underlying the Act. As the leading treatise on immigration law explains, in the absence of any indication of a desire by Congress to exclude INS proceedings from the benefits of the EAJA, the [position that the EAJA does not apply to deportation hearings] seems questionable, particularly since such proceedings seem to fit precisely within the language and purpose of the EAJA. 1 Gordon and Rosenfeld, Immigration Law and Procedure Sec. 1.24Ab(2), at 1-152.12.