Document: 498 U.S. 479 111 S.Ct. 888 112 L.Ed.2d 1005 Gene McNARY, Commissioner of Immigration and Naturalization, et al., Petitioners,v.HAITIAN REFUGEE CENTER, INC., al. No. 89-1332. Argued Oct. 29, 1990. Decided Feb. 20, 1991. Syllabus The Reform Control Act 1986 (Reform Act) amended the Nationality (INA) creating, inter alia, a "Special Agricultural Workers" (SAW) amnesty program for specified alien farmworkers. Naturalization Service (INS) determined SAW status eligibility based on evidence presented at personal interview with each applicant. Section 210(e)(1) INA barred judicial review "of determination respecting an application" except in context deportation order, conducted by courts appeals. Respondents, Haitian Refugee Center unsuccessful individual applicants, filed class action District Court, alleging that initial application process was arbitrary manner violation applicants' due rights under Fifth Amendment. While recognizing aliens could not obtain denials their applications proceedings appeals, Court accepted jurisdiction because complaint did challenge any status, but rather contained allegations about which entire being implemented. court found number INS practices violated were unconstitutional, Appeals affirmed. Held: had federal-question to hear respondents' constitutional statutory challenges procedures. Pp. 895-899. (a) There is no clear congressional language mandating preclusion jurisdiction. 210(e)(1)'s prohibiting " refers direct general collateral unconstitutional policies used processing applications. reference "a determination" describes single act, as does § 210(e)(3), provides "judicial such denial." 210(e)(3)(B), specifies be administrative record thatfac tual determinations shall conclusive absent showing abuse discretion, supports this reading. A emerging from appeals address kind procedural claims respondents have brought, abuse-of-discretion standard apply or determinations, are subject de novo review. Limiting provisions set forth 210(e) therefore contemplated. Moreover, Congress intended limited encompass procedures practices, it easily broader language. 491-494. (b) As practical matter, would unable meaningful objections if they required avail themselves INA's Under scheme, record, alleged inadequate; surrender order receive review, tantamount complete denial review; reviewing most likely adequate pattern allegedly lack district court's factfinding record-developing capabilities. Given Court's well-settled presumption favoring interpretations statutes allow action, cannot conclude so foreclose all forms This case controlled Bowen v. Michigan Academy Family Physicians, 476 667, 106 2133, 90 623, interpreted Medicare statute permit individuals payment regulation's validity even though regulation. Heckler Ringer, 466 602, 104 2013, 80 622, distinguished. 494-499. 872 F.2d 1555 (CA 11 1989), STEVENS, J., delivered opinion MARSHALL, BLACKMUN, O'CONNOR, KENNEDY, SOUTER, JJ., joined, Parts I, II, III, IV WHITE, joined. REHNQUIST, C.J., dissenting opinion, SCALIA, post, p. ----. Michael R. Dreeben, Washington, D.C., petitioners. Ira J. Kurzban, Miami, Fla., respondents. Justice STEVENS Court.* 1 Act)1 constituted major response vast tide illegal immigration produced "shadow population" literally millions undocumented United States. On one hand, sought stem making plight more onerous future than been past; thus, imposed criminal sanctions employers who hired workers2 made federally funded welfare benefits unavailable these aliens.3 other recognition large segment shadow population played useful constructive role American economy,4 continued reside perpetual fear,5 established two broad programs existing emerge shadows. 2 first permitted resided States continuously unlawfully since January 1, 1982, qualify adjustment his her lawful permanent resident. See 100 Stat. 3394, amended, 8 U.S.C. 1255a. second Attorney General adjust farmworker establish he she performed least days qualifying agricultural work during 12-month period prior May 1986, provided also admissibility immigrant. "[s]pecial workers" (SAW's) lawfully admitted temporary residence, see 3417, 1160(a)(1), then eventually 1160(a)(2). 3 relates only program. Although additional issues resolved Appeals, question us whether (INA), added 302(a) sets program, 1160(e), precludes federal exercising over practice violations its administration We hold given absence nature requested relief, Were we otherwise instead require INA, foreclosed. 4 * three important applicant status. First, mere filing "non-frivolous entitled authorization remain valid processed. 1160(d)(2)(B). Second, regardless disposition application, expressly prohibited Government using information enforcement purposes. Thus, means identifying deportable aliens; rather, initiation proceeding obtained independent source. 1160(b)(6). Third, granted, became resident, and, course, 5 In fear prosecution cause many reluctant come forward disclose directed enlist assistance variety nonfederal organizations encourage provide them counsel process. These "qualified . designated entities" (QDE's), included private entities farm labor associations well qualified state, local, community groups, allowed unless consented. §§ 1160(b)(2), (b)(4). 6 specially created legalization office (LO), QDE, appropriate LO, 18-month commencing June 1987. 1160(b)(1)(A). Regulations adopted administer LO. CFR 210.2(c)(2)(iv) (1990). prove preponderance worked requisite seasonal services. 210.3(a), (b)(1). To meet burden proof, present own testimony. 210.3(b)(2). through production employer's payroll records, 1160(b)(3)(B)(ii), submission affidavits "by producers, foremen, contractors, union officials, fellow employees, persons specific knowledge applicant's employment," 210.3(c)(3) At conclusion materials, LO deny make recommendation regional facility either granted denied. 210.1(q). denial, local level, appealed unit, authorized final decision case. 103.3(a)(2)(iii). 7 210(e)(3)(A) INA. That subsection exclusion deportation."6 view fact constitute fora orders, 75 651, 1105a, plainly foreclosed against applicant, completely II Southern Florida Center, Migration Services Roman Catholic Diocese Palm Beach,7 17 applicants. plaintiffs relief behalf farmworkers injured unlawful fashion deprived applicants guaranteed Amendment Constitution. Among charges, apprised opportunity adverse predicated, denied witnesses behalf, non-English speaking communicate effectively LO's competent interpreters provided, verbatim recording made, thus inhibiting facilities. App. 44-45; Inc. Nelson, 694 F.Supp. 864, 867 (SD Fla.1988). 9 After evidentiary hearing, ruled jurisdiction, should proceed preliminary injunction issue. recognized contest "unless until institut[ed] them," "does attacks implemented, beyond scope review."8 merits, unconstitutional,9 entered requiring vacate categories denials,10 modify certain respects.11 10 upheld findings conclusions rejected Government's jurisdictional arguments. Relying earlier Circuit precedent, held bar inapplicable: "In Jean 727 957 (11th Cir.1984) (in banc), aff'd, 472 846, 105 2992, 86 664 (1985), reaffirmed section (Codified 1105a) deprive systematic abuses officials. Jean, 980. explained postpone 'judicial resolution disputed issue affects petitioner has litigate habeas corpus foster very delay redundancy eliminate passing 1105a.' Id. appellees do merits determination; contend defendants' rights." 1555, 1560 (CA11 1989). 12 certiorari petition, petitioners seek rulings form injunctive relief. Our grant question. III 13 preface our analysis petitioners' position identification matters undisputed benefit previously alien. protects deportation; creates job opportunities available whose Indeed, places worse before passed employment longer persons. successful acquires measure freedom live openly without arrest markedly different Even disregarding risk deportation, impact gainful sufficient mandate constitutionally fair time litigation asserted right employ procedures, questioned obligation afford law. 14 Nor, stage litigation, there dispute routinely persistently Constitution Petitioners those caused injury organizational members plaintiff class. explicitly, argument assumes not, Act, narrow issue, therefore, 210(e), bars proceedings, forecloses INS' practices. 15 Petitioners' rests seeking status" plain 1160(e)(1).12 critical words 210(e)(1), however, describe provision referring (emphasis added). Significantly, act group decisions procedure employed decisions. when 1160(e)(3), further clarifies proceeding, "—again again application. agree Appeals' reading describing agency 16 Act's supported 210(e)(3)(B) "shall solely upon appellate authority can discretion directly contrary convincing facts considered whole." 1160(e)(3)(B). incorporates assumption subjected consideration resulted creation record. However, consists completed form, report medical examination, documents notes, any, interview—all relating Because bring limiting contemplated provision. "abuse-of-discretion" sense read specialized adjudication claims, reviewed courts. lends substantial credence administering 18 Finally, note could, example, modeled expansive Title channeling into special "all causes arising provisions" 66 230, 1329. It moreover 38 211(a), governs veterans' "on questions law fact" 19 Congress' choice language, fall within 210(e). Rather, applies particular 28 1331 remains unimpaired V 20 place principal reliance 622 (1984). four Ringer wanted reimbursement surgery undergone fourth needed. They Secretary's policy refusing original exhausting claims. dismissed essence claim entitlement surgical procedure. With respect surgery, concluded "it makes sense" construe "as anything than, bottom, paid BCBR [bilateral carotid body resection] surgery," id., 614, S.Ct., 2021, success denying effect deciding merits. "Indeed," noted, "the redress supposed 'procedural' invalidation current 'substantive' declaration expenses reimbursable Act." Ibid. Concluding "collateral" benefits, pursue remedies. doing, significant respondents, agency, "clearly remedy 405(g) challenging [in courts] aspects surgery." Id., 617, 2022-23.13 21 Unlike situation Heckler, substantive Nor prevail purportedly establishing files reopened reconsidered light newly prescribed 22 unlike matter able notwithstanding presumable legislates basic rules construction, 670, 2135, 623 (1986), coupled unlikely 23 Several scheme preclude lacked challenge. Initially, almost always confined decisionmaking central assemble records. found, recordings transcripts interviews inadequate call unit INS, facilities, basis determinations. 24 Additionally, later apprehended initiated, ensure voluntarily deportation. Quite obviously, price istanta mount aliens. 25 type raised litigation. unfairness adduced amount evidence, irrelevant Not capabilities court. Bar Association amicus points out, level "are traditionally viewed warranted circumstances where unnecessarily duplicate 'pattern practice' cases essential [given record]." Brief Amicus Curiae 7. seems us, restricting component equivalent total generic 26 Decision unanimous holding14 Bowen, supra. contention sections Social Security 42 301 seq. (1982 ed.), regulation governing benefits. foreclosed, attack itself, emphasizing difference between "amount determinations: 27 "The reticulated carefully details forum limits 'any part A,' 1395ff(b)(1)(C) ed., Supp. II), 'amount payment' Part B, 1395u(b)(3)(C), simply speak mounted method amounts themselves. Secretary clear, 'the legality, otherwise, regulations relevant Program' 'fair hearing' carrier resolve grievance related B award. result, described [U.S. v.] Erika [Inc., 456 201, 102 1650, 72 (1982) ] determination' decides claim' impliedly denies U.S., 208 [102 1654]." 675-676, 2138-2139 original). Inherent concern construction statute, "no program." 680, 2141. 29 Heckler. strong favor overcome purpose Act. 30 judgment 31 ordered. 32 Chief whom SCALIA joins, dissenting. 33 "he runs may read." considerable obvious effort, finds way avoid limitation, written is, my view, constitutional, need rewrite it. 34 dealing 1160(e): 35 "(1) Administrative 36 "There accordance subsection. 37 "(2) "(A) Single 39 40 41 "(3) Judicial Limitation 43 1105a title." quoted sentences states, clearly can, "determination section" (3)(A) connection chooses "direct applications." Ante, 492. But generally—even express statute—is "final actions" reviewable Procedure provides: 44 "[F]inal [is] preliminary, procedural, intermediate ruling action." 704. 45 reasoning classic non sequitur. reasons what decisions, must separate issued decision. failed generally preclusion. settled rule, natural 1160(e) encompasses both reach Each 46 several occasions advanced bypass restrictions purporting results. For instance, Erika, Inc., (1982), "precisely drawn awards omission "provides persuasive deliberately claims." 208, 1654 (citations omitted). Similarly, (1984), addressed Health andHuman precluded permits "any under" 405(g), (h), after claimant seeks exhausts contended lawsuits refusal reimburse permissible remedies challenged 'procedure' reaching decision," underlying 2021. distinction, finding holding result claimants "to exhaustion requirements bringing declaratory actions undergo question." 621, 2025. contention—also urged here—that "simply somehow construed 'procedural,' cognizable jurisdiction." 47 mechanism, free alternatives scheme. Fausto, 484 439, 448-449, 108 668, 673-674, 98 830 (1988); Whitney National Bank New Orleans & Trust Co., 379 411, 419-422, 85 551, 556-559, 386 (1965). creating balanced goals unprecedented insure reasonably prompt determinations" incentives ineligible derail ponderously reasoned gloss statute's unwarranted intrusion drafted placed great emphasis minimal paperwork effort speed adjusting demonstrated adjustment. "If balance struck anew, Court." supra, 627, 2028. 48 bases entertain out "strong presumption" intends action. 498. presumption, comes play genuine ambiguity things evident: drafting action; detailed earlier, orders exclusion. enacting avenues Therefore, ambiguous, force here. 49 indicates particularly applicable raising 496-499. I believe so. 50 enacted one-time allowing residents. limited, "[t]his last call, one-shot deal." 132 Cong.Rec. 33217 (1986) (remarks Sen. Simpson). If file period, lost forever. expedite unique minimize courts, 51 structure extremely doubtful operation give rise colorable 'An political member Nation rightfully terms conditions Congress. Courts sanction changes modifications; duty rigidly enforce legislative will vital public welfare.' Pangilinan, 486 875, 884, 2210, 2216, 882 (1988) (quoting Ginsberg, 243 472, 474, 422, 425, 61 L.Ed. 853 (1917)). 52 Respondents undoubtedly accorded reason Act—which resorted suing Court—would assured compliance never mentions aliens, illegally States, demand said regard conceivable, likely, handled some right, requesting burdensome one. held, explicit here, obviously interested expeditiously avalanche noncitizens conferring benefit, think WHITE joins opinion. Pub.L. 99-603, 3359. Prior November 6, enactment date violate 228, 1324(a) ed.) (providing "for purposes [criminalizing harboring enter States], (including usual normal incident employment) deemed harboring"). 101 civil penalties hire unauthorized knowingly complying verification requirements. 1324a. 121 verify 3384-3394. House Committee noted behind Act: living working borders. Many people here years become communities. family ties include citizens built social networks country. contributed myriad ways, including providing talents, tax dollars. fear, afraid help violated, victimized criminals, landlords ill. "Continuing ignore harmful alternative intensifying interior attempting mass deportations costly, ineffective, inconsistent immigrant heritage. believes solution lies legalizing statuts [sic years, past failures enforces laws settle "This step enable target efforts new flows conjunction proposed employer programs, flow contribute society prevent exploitation vulnerable place." H.R.Rep. 99-682, pt. U.S.Code Cong. Admin.News pp. 5649, 5653. Senator Simpson, sponsors vulnerability "subculture human beings go cops, hospital, says 'One peep you, buster, you down road.' 33222 (1986). full text reads follows: "(e) determination. "(B) Standard "Such discovered title. alleges respondent following interest litigation: "Plaintiff MIGRATION AND SERVICES OF THE ROMAN CATHOLIC DIOCESE PALM BEACH ("RCDPB") Beach. Its principle [sic] business West Beach, Florida. parishes diocese Beach foreign workers man-days 1985 season, potentially eligible addition, Plaintiff RCDPB Defendant "Qualified Designated Entity" (QDE) IRCA. QDE's counseling assist filling documentation, resident IRCA, QDE same processing. fees Defendants complained discourages Plaintiffs prevents fulfilling mission assisting IRCA." 24. 873 standing. explained: "HRC '[d]efendants' recognize [HRC's members] IRCA indirectly injures HRC. organization HRC's refugee difficult results diversion resources away clients having urgent needs.' Complaint ¶ 17. HRC indirect members. MRS obtaining documentation. receives reimbursed behavior discouraged and/or prevented 874-875. maintain records workers, maintained secret list supporting discredited giving corroborate affiants' statements. 871-872. interviews, spoke Creole personnel understood despite "is face encounter assess credibility." 869. part: whole submit piecework receipts, reconsider proper proof government negate just reasonable inference submitted applicant; "(4) Legalization Offices 1987, March 1988, show frivolous documentation fraud misrepresentation process." 881. ordered institute procedures: "(6) translators, minimum, Spanish Creole, translators languages necessary; "(7) growers, co-workers, offer testimony support "(8) interviewers particularize offered, taken, credibility I-696." state brief: declares all-encompassing terms: 'There subsection.' 1160(e)(1). paragraphs, spells precise exclusive requires establishment 'a determination,' unequivocally states '[t]here [of application] title.' 1160(e)(2)(A) (e)(3)(A). 1105a(a), turn, petition 'shall sole for[] deportation,' while exclusively proceedings. 1105a(b). hardly chosen clearer forceful intention 'determination application' orders. IRCA's directions, draw 1331, laws, 1329, adjudicate exercise source power 11-13 (footnotes respondent's "essentially 405(g)," 620, 2024, "claim 'claim under' substantially undercut crafted REHNQUIST participate

Category: 8