Document: 509 U.S. 43 113 S.Ct. 2485 125 L.Ed.2d 38 Janet RENO, Attorney General, et al., Petitionersv.CATHOLIC SOCIAL SERVICES, INC., al. No. 91-1826. Argued Jan. 11, 1993. Decided June 18, Syllabus * Under the alien legalization program created by Title II of Immigration Reform and Control Act 1986, an unlawfully present in United States who sought permission to reside permanently had apply first for temporary resident status establishing, inter alia, that he resided continuously this country unlawful been physically here specified periods. After Naturalization Service (INS) issued regulations construing particular aspects of, respectively, "continuous physical presence" residence" requirements, two separate class actions were brought, each challenging one on behalf aliens whom it would render ineligible legalization. In instance, District Court struck down challenged regulation as inconsistent with a remedial order directing INS accept applications beyond statutory deadline. The Appeals, among other rulings, consolidated INS's appeals from orders, rejected argument Act's restrictive judicial review provisions barred district court jurisdiction case, affirmed Courts' judgments. Held: record is insufficient allow decide all issues necessary determine whether Courts jurisdiction. Pp. ____. (a) exclusive scheme—which applies "determination[s] respecting application adjustment status," 8 U.S.C. § 1255a(f)(1), specifies "a denial" such may be judicially scrutinized "only . deportation" 1255a(f)(4)(A)—does not preclude over action which, legality regulation, does refer or rely denial any individual application. language delimiting jurisdictional bar refers only denial. McNary v. Haitian Refugee Center, Inc., 498 479, 494, 111 888, 897, 112 1005. (b) However, promulgation did itself affect plaintiff members concretely enough his claim "ripe" review, required by, e.g., Abbott Laboratories Gardner, 387 136, 148-149, 87 1507, 1515-1516, 18 681. impose no penalties violating newly imposed restriction, but limit access benefit automatically bestowed eligible aliens. Rather, requires desiring take further affirmative steps, satisfy criteria those addressed disputed regulations. It delegates task determining case-by-case basis applicant has met conditions, merely interpreted question. these circumstances, member's ripen once took steps could before blocked path applying him. Ordinarily, barrier appear when formally denied alien's ground rendered him But ripeness requirement then still find himself at least temporarily provisions, since seeking "judicial determination application" under 1255a(f). (c) Nevertheless, "front-desking" policy—which directs employees reject Legalization Office's front desk if statutorily status—may well have left some plaintiffs ripe claims are outside scope A front-desked member whose was because issue felt regulation's effects particularly concrete manner, there; challenge should fail lack ripeness. Front-desking also untoward consequence purposes effectively excluding even limited administrative procedures, formal appeal administratively nor opportunity build which might based. Absent clear convincing evidence congressional intent entirely, must presumed applicants obtain circumstances. See McNary, supra, U.S., 496-497, S.Ct., 898-899. there actually subjected front-desking, cannot resolved records below. Because, cases presented Court, (if any) exercise jurisdiction, remanded new determinations and, appropriate, orders. 956 F.2d 914, (CA9 1992), vacated remanded. SOUTER, J., delivered opinion REHNQUIST, C.J., SCALIA, KENNEDY, THOMAS, JJ., joined. O'CONNOR, filed concurring judgment. STEVENS, dissenting opinion, WHITE BLACKMUN, Ronald J. Mann, Washington, DC, petitioners. Ralph S. Abascal, San Francisco, CA, respondents. Justice SOUTER Court. 1 This petition joins suits, different administering 1986. deadline; Appeals We now asked consider hear challenges, their orders permitted law. accordingly vacate remand accordance views expressed here. 2 On November 6, President signed Pub.L. 99-603, 100 Stat. 3359, established scheme certain apply, first, then, after one-year wait, permanently.1 An January 1, 1982, 1255a(a)(2)(A); date enacted, 1255a(a)(3)(A); otherwise admissible immigrant. 1255a(a)(4). applied during 12-month period beginning May 5, 1987. 1255a(a)(1).2 3 suits joined us addressing, four requirements. Reno Catholic Social Services, Inc. (CSS) focuses interpretation 1255a(a)(3), residence prove To mitigate requirement, provides "brief, casual, innocent absences States" will break continuity. 1255a(a)(3)(B). telex sent its regional offices 14, however, treated exception narrowly, stating absence casual innocent" obtained permission, known "advance parole," leaving States; without "ineligible legalization." App. 186. later softened limitation somewhat 1987, forgiving failure get advance parole between 1986 confirmed 1987 considered therefore taken broken CFR 245a.1(g) (1992) ("Brief, means departure authorized [the INS] (advance parole) subsequent more than thirty (30) days legitimate emergency humanitarian purposes"). 4 CSS impermissible construction Act. certifying case action, eventually defined comprising "persons prima facie [8 1255a] departed reentered authorization (i.e. 'advance parole') enactment [Reform Act] following what they assert brief, States."3 Civ. S-86-1343 LKK (ED Cal., 3, 1988) (App. 50). April 22, 1988, 12 end program's period, granted partial summary judgment invalidating declaring require prior approval. Apr. (Record, Doc. 161); see Meese, 685 F.Supp. 1149 Cal.1988) (explaining 22 order). No (by initials we General collectively), briefing 10, 1988 requiring extend 30, 19884 "knew INS's] thereby concluded reason conclusion file application."5 Pet. Cert. 25a). Two August provided, alternative remedy extension invalidated appeal, specific relief detained apprehended deportation proceedings.6 Cal.) 187, 189). appealed three orders.7 5 second lawsuits, styled League Latin American Citizens (LULAC) goes 1255a(a)(2)(A), requirement. brief trips abroad continuous (just violate requirement). 1255a(g)(2)(A). gone presenting "facially valid" documentation immigration authorities. 245a.2(b)(8) (1992).8 reasoning, use made presence "lawful" breaking continuity residence. Thus, originally entered valid nonimmigrant visa, become terms visa way Government If, same briefly used back (a facially fact invalid earlier violation terms), ineligible. 6 July LULAC brought suit reentry both equal protection derived Fifth Amendment due process. With pending, 17, seven months into modified policy issuing regulations.9 codified 245a.2(b)(9) (1992), specifically acknowledged eligibility "reentered return unrelinquished residence," so long "would 1982." 52 Fed.Reg. 43845 (1987). second, 245a.2(b)(10) qualified expansion obliging waiver provision exclusion enter fraud. Ibid. 7 Although amended complaint, pressed 245a.2(b)(8), challenged, modification. As claim, certified including "all persons qualify deemed original [reentry] policy, learned ineligibility who, relying upon information ineligible, 4, deadline."10 87-4757-WDK (JRx) (CD Cal. 15, 216). 9 10 weeks held invalid, while reserving question remedy. 224-225). Again, appeal. extending 1988,11 compelling publicize extended period. They argued truncated enforcing publicizing dissuade potential applicants, failing give sufficient publicity change policy. 12, plaintiffs' request injunctive relief.12 Aug. 50a). order. LULAC, raised challenges respective Courts. First, case. contended, erred ordering being, maintained, substantive restriction power alter. 11 Ninth Circuit appeals. holding them pending Court's disposition 1005 (1991), decision February 1992, affirming Courts.13 Thornburgh, 914 (1992). prompted grant certiorari, 505 ----, 2990, 120 867 importance issues, conflict circuits issue, Ayuda, 292 U.S.App.D.C. 150, 156-162, 948 742, 748-754 (1991) (holding precluded Act), cert. 91-1924. remand. sets qualifications obtaining status, application[s] status" program. 1255a(f)(1). Section 1255a(f)(3)(A) "establish appellate authority provide single level review" determinations. 1255a(f)(4)(A) subject 1105a]"; 1105a, takes place Appeals. 1255a(f)(1) closes circle explicitly rendering exclusive: "There shall section except subsection." 13 scheme, instance Associate Commissioner Examinations, "appellate authority" designated pursuant 1255a(f)(3)(A). §§ 103.1(f)(1)(xxvii), 245a.2(p) Commissioner's final agency application, adverse trigger proceedings. contrary, generally allows make 1255a(c)(5),14 stands (except latent right rejection) position applied: residing found out about yet.15 call "latent" "an deportation." Hence, either surrender deportation16 wait catch commence proceeding, suffer having court. 14 exercising cases, reasoning adopted elaborate within meaning 1255a(f)(1); attack validity regulations, limitations contained 1255a(f), foreclosing courts, granting recognizes, line our where construed virtually identical set governing agricultural workers III Act.17 There, here, critical status." said "the reference 'a determination' describes act rather group decisions practice procedure employed making decisions." Id., 492, 896. noted permitting context proceeding act: " 'judicial denial.' (emphasis original) (quoting 1160(e)(3)); (using language). decided setting limits "describes application," thus "applies denials applications." 897. gives reverse course, precludes referring 15 hurdle plaintiffs, justiciability requirements Congressional directive. sure, source lacking, 28 1331, federal "confer[s] courts action." Califano Sanders, 430 99, 105, 97 980, 984, 51 192 (1977). Neither fatal silent type seek. customarily refuse treat silence "as [an] aggrieved person seek appropriate courts," Stark Wickard, 321 288, 309, 64 559, 571, 88 L.Ed. 733 (1944), custom "reinforced Administrative Procedure Act, embodies basic presumption 'suffering legal wrong adversely affected relevant statute.' 140, 1511, 681 (1967) 702). 16 Laboratories, available implicit limitation: "injunctive declaratory remedies," respondents "are discretionary, traditionally reluctant unless arise controversy 'ripe' resolution,"18 148, 1515, say, "felt parties." 1515. parties itself. example, Gardner Toilet Goods Assn., 167, 1526, 704 (1967), immediate dilemma choose complying imposed, disadvantageous restrictions risking serious violation. 152-153, 1517-1518; 171-172, 1528-1529. every 158, 1520, 697 another impact "be immediately conducting day-to-day affairs," id., 164, 1524, acute fashion, "no irremediabl[y] consequences flow[ed] challenge." Ibid.; Lujan National Wildlife Federation, 497 871, 891, 110 3177, 3190, 695 (1990) concerning ordinarily until claimant's situation action). 17 fall latter side line. regulations.19 claim; him.20 application." doctrine dovetail neatly, necessarily mere coincidence. Congress assumed that, ordinary specifying individual, proceed scheme. do argue afford inadequate based challenge, presumably able order, order; "17 unsuccessful SAW applicants" 487, 893, procedural objections, concluded, receive practical 1160(e). 19 matter, called attention placed manual detailing procedures follow implementing programs instructing "Legalization Assistants" accepting filing. Procedures Manual Special Agricultural Worker Programs (Legalization Manual).21 According Manual, "[m]inor correctable deficiencies incomplete responses typographical errors corrected [Legalization Assistant]." IV-6. "[I]f ineligible," added). Because prefiling rejection occurs office, come "front-desking."22 While force, Assistants Manual's instructions "front-desked" disclosed circumstances States, affidavits represent exactly that.23 n. 26, infra. 20 argue, Brief Respondents 23, parole" document" Front- desking further, untoward, purposes, exclude He based.24 construe impute entirely stated recently "well-settled favoring interpretations statutes action," 496, 898; 'clear evidence.' 141, 1511 Rusk Cort, 369 367, 379-380, 82 787, 794, 809 (1962)); Bowen Michigan Academy Family Physicians, 476 667, 670-673, 106 2133, 2136-2137, 90 623 (1986) (discussing favor review). 21 There statute us. phrase conceivably encompass Assistant's refusal filing Office, nothing suggests, let alone demonstrates, using "determination" informal sense. Indeed, related suggests just opposite. 1255a(f)(3)(B) time application"; obviously can term best read front-desking. avoided 1160(e) amounted equivalent total generic constitutional claims," 497, 899, avoid ever Unfortunately, neither contains None named alleges she front-desked,25 number contain testimony attorneys interested organizations "refused," "rejected," "den[ied] individuals file" applications,26 general assertions; none affiants incident identify front-desking.27 23 resolving because, facts us, front-desking ripe, so. seems reliable member, (which, assume, not), manner October 16, 977 Qualified Designated Entities aided prepar ing front-desked, 44812 (1987); 21, history behavior predict Entity assistance front-desked. say existence involved "concrete front-desked.28 directions proceedings front-desked.29 24 vacated, consistent opinion. 25 ordered. 26 27 I agree (LULAC), interval not, reach result grounds. holds failed my view, became before. merit, longer premature. problem ripeness, submissions discussed passing. 13; Petitioners 20; 23. certiorari questions, rightly adhered: judicial-review Act; properly I. finds meritless ante, ____, instead presented, sua sponte attempts resolve reaches hold him." Ante, incorrect Moreover, correct, propounded irrelevant hand. 29 Our anticipatory rules specify against benefit-conferring rule, would-be beneficiary, yet rule denies him, poses problems pre-enforcement duty-creating 148-156, 1515-1519, (permitting suit). Even succeeds beneficiary it; deny grounds rule. By contrast, successful relieve burden bear. 30 Yet go far state unripe simply benefit. "Where inevitability operation patent, justiciable delay effect." Regional Rail Reorganization Cases, 419 102, 143, 95 335, 358, 42 320 (1974). If "inevitable" "operat[e]" plaintiff's disadvantage firm prediction benefit, virtue rule—then prudent resolve. 31 mean suggest simple approach propose. Cf. 19. That need explained below, challenge. infra, My criticize reasoning—its reliance categorical beneficiaries benefits. 32 Certainly support approach. discusses approval 33 "[I]n Storer Broadcasting Co., 351 [76 763, 1081 (1956) ], FCC announcing Commission television license already owning five licenses, though Commission." 151, 1516 34 More recently, EPA Crushed Stone 449 64, 101 295, 66 268 (1980), facial variance pollution-control "prior [company's] variance." 72, 301, 12. And Pacific Gas & Elec. Co. State Energy Resources Conservation Development Comm'n, 461 190, 103 1713, 75 752 (1983), utilities law imposing moratorium certification nuclear plants, certificate. 200-202, 1720-1721. certificates, variances, exempt bearer otherwise-applicable duties; true instant cases. conferred Act—an lawful alien, 1255a(a)—readily conceptualized "license" "certificate" remain "variance" laws. 35 (1990), that: 36 "Absent [explicit review], APA reduced manageable proportions, factual components fleshed out, fashion harms threatens harm (The major exception, matter adjust conduct immediately. Such once, explicit apart provided.)" 891-892, 3190 (citations omitted). 37 necessity constitutionally unripe, "explicit help cure problem. points prudential considerations weigh calculus: "fles[h] out" "adjust immediately." These kinds factors identified two-part, test articulated. "The seen twofold aspect, evaluate fitness hardship withholding consideration." 149, Thomas Union Carbide Products 473 568, 581-582, 105 3325, 3333, 409 (1985) (relying test); Gas, 200-203, 1720-1721 (same); Stone, 72-73, 301-302, (same). At very least, purely legal, raise later, justiciable, Thus never law, above-described category actions, seeks invalidate progressed Courts, complaints additional invalidation regulations: Compare Sixth Amended Complaint 140), First 56) Third 69), 1). expired thereafter extension. 22a-28a, 50a-60a (orders dated 1988). entered. correct agency's wholly futile gesture submitting it. 39 why lacks deadline, expired. provided 18-month closed months, meaningfully distinguishable. Of predicate invalidity length difference calculus. "basic rationale" behind "is prevent through premature adjudication, entangling themselves abstract disagreements," "disagreements" premised "contingent future events occur anticipated, indeed all." Carbide, 580-581, 3333 (internal quotation marks contingency closing closed. Nor prudence justify postponing delayed cause grave uncertainty. 40 responds point reiterating suffered "concrete" injury, 20. present, redress different, logically prior, injury: 41 analysis question: [gave] claim." ____ members' inception Whatever initial claims, "since peculiarly timing, govern." 357. Accord, Buckley Valeo, 424 114-118, 96 612, 680-682, 46 659 (1976) (per curiam). Similarly, (and, happens, orders), complaints, govern. respondents' "flatly" 1255a(f)(2), provides: "No [under late reviewed [any] ." remarkable 1255a(f)(2) barring deadline INS, interpreting observes, preclusive "broader" uses word "denial" "determination." believe months. think bars predicated turn event, concerns reviewability, ripeness; remains misguided. unalloyed apply. authorizes illegal "appl[ies] General." 1255a(a)(1)(A). argues, waited ended. prudentially, "A overlook [requirement] [submitted] receipt benefits." Schweiker Hansen, 450 785, 790, 1468, 1472, 67 (1981) 44 equity Whether equitable tolling, Irwin Department Veterans Affairs, 89, 95-96, 453, 457-458, 435 perhaps estoppel, Office Personnel Management Richmond, 496 414, 419-424, 2465, 2468-2471, needed special States. adduce supposed "affirmative misconduct" INS. Irwin, 96, 457-458. ("We allowed tolling situations complainant induced tricked adversary's misconduct allowing pass"); 421, 2470 ("Our own opinions continued mention possibility, course rejecting estoppel arguments, 'affirmative misconduct' rise Government"). engaged promulgating deterred Plaintiffs' Submission Re Availability Remedies Plaintiff Class CSS, pp. 6-15 164), Memorandum 40). essentially accepted argument, remedies coextensive INS' "misconduct." INS'] 25a; almost remedy, 59a. 45 commits misconduct," incorrectly When passes benefits includes goals. intends claimants promptly claims. broad definition "misconduct" propose goal absolute priority presume prioritization. absent goals harmonized possible, timely concurrently contest regulation. "We much less receiving filings claimant diligence preserving rights." 458. contrary Congress's presumptive error. 'Courts disregard law.' Pangilinan, 486 875, 883, 108 2210, 2216, 882 (1988) Hedges Dixon County, 150 182, 192, 71, 74, 1044 (1893)). vacated. "applied" 29. remand, demonstrate instances classes. 16-20, 35-42. possibility narrower adjudicate "front-desked," endorse most suggestions djQ BLACKMUN join, dissenting. 47 amnesty promulgated severely restricting valid, classes Government, defends effect accepted; other, half Accordingly, members. 48 lacked entertain form (1991). 919-921 1992). today, ruling plainly correct. correctly advanced noting effectuated Congress' "meaningful opportunities adjustments frustrated enforcement F.2d, 921-922. should, accordingly, affirm 49 prolonging litigation theory barely mentioned Court: part, adjudication. (opinion judgment), rationale seriously flawed. Unlike doubt soon concededly promulgated. 50 pronged, "requiring (1967). fit turn, often depends degree nature [a] relief," 1521, or, put differently, him," (1990). O'CONNOR notes, returned two-part again, formulation govern factor, sufficiently "direct immediate," 152, 1517, review. rests, unusual character supra: (Reform Act) constituted response vast tide produced 'shadow population' literally millions undocumented [I]n recognition large segment shadow population played useful constructive role economy, perpetual fear, existing emerge shadows." 481-483, 890-892 (footnotes omitted).1 53 purpose ambitious effort eliminate fear immigrants lived, 'afraid rights violated, victimized criminals, employers landlords ill.' 168, 760 (Wald, dissenting) H.R.Rep. 99-682, pt. p. (1986). governmental authority, "qualified entities," "QDEs," serve channel communication providing reasonable assurance "emergence shadows" deportation. 1255a(c)(2); U.S.App.D.C., 760, 1. 54 official advice convince retain "shadow" forward. moment made—at conformed regulations—those directly respondents, consigning world designed deliver them, threatening deprive entitlement theirs.2 Lujan, (concrete ripeness). 55 majority concedes, concretely, "blocked there." Why "then there," opposed elsewhere, dispositive unclear me; thwarted front-desk Assistant, QDE, consultation private attorney, word-of-mouth regarding policies, equally concrete, devastating. difference, demonstrate, like class, 'learned apply,' 'knew Judge Wald 56 "[T]he admits low officials refused outright filing, suit. allege active discouragement accept, subtle distinction indeed, undoubtedly lost involved, practice." 169, 761, citation 57 cost weighs heavily Every day effective meant spent shadows attendant costs life. important, passing day, clock run, increasing risk came, meaningless 178, 770 dissenting).3 today speaks volumes deferring situation. 1565 (challenge irremediable flow challenge"). 58 plain adjudication filed. holding, rest premise condition satisfied odds understanding government affects regulated. Northeastern Florida Chapter Associated Contractors America Jacksonville, 508 2297, --- ---- (1993), contractors ordinance difficult compete public business showing business, announced rule: 59 "When erects makes group, former establish standing. 'injury fact' variety treatment resulting imposition barrier, ultimate inability benefit." - 2302-2303.4 Jacksonville supported precedent; notable originality. 60 Though differs agreement concluding periods, turns intent. judgment); Pipe Construction Utah, 414 538, 557-558, 94 756, 768, 713 (1974) (equitable "consonant legislative scheme"); Weinberger Romero-Barcelo, 456 305, 313, 102 1798, 1804, 72 91 (1982) (courts powers restriction); bound requirements). Where differ extensions intent, hence 61 "[w]hen goals." Here, finality one-time program, integration productive mainstream. Perales 967 798, 813 (CA2 balance ends, achieve each, settled Twelve determined, frightened understand step forward applications, especially full combined outreach efforts mandated 1255a(i) (requiring dissemination program); 1255a(c)(2) (establishing QDEs). generous finality, 'ensur[ing] resolution one-time-only program.' pt 62 problem, For shrank precisely legalization; roughly Congress. 922; Perales, 813. 63 furthered, frustrated, distinguishes naturalization expiration 882-885, 2215-2217. faced "congressional command [that] manifest" precluding granted. 884, 2216. hand, limitation.5 all, largely delineate delegation highlights relative insignificance cutoff date, 813, 4. Finally, experienced "front-desking," 29; judgment). sense proposition Teamsters 431 324, 1843, 396 (1977), involving discriminatory employment practices VII Civil Rights 1964, jobs employer's along unsuccessfully applied. reasoned: 65 consistently enforced surely deter job aware unwilling humiliation rejection. ". person's desire translated solely unwillingness engage victim discrimination motions 365-366, 1870. intelligent principle control respondent show "in analogous applicant," entitled relief. 368, 1871. 68 counts case: Respondents' filed, ordered exceed respectfully dissent. syllabus constitutes part prepared Reporter Decisions convenience reader. Detroit Lumber 200 321, 337, 282, 287, 499. Nationality 163, amended, 1101 seq. 201(a)(1) adding 245A 1255a. sake convenience, sections codified. "begi[n] (not 180 1986) begin latest designate. 245a.2(a)(1) "[a]n ., [why deported]" "make 30-day issuance whichever later." 1255a(a)(1)(B); 1255a(e)(1) (providing "apprehended period"). lawsuit various administration "Special Workers" (SAW) Part (codified 1160). party appealed. Record, 188). respect believed deportable Nov. 24, 15). proceedings, narrowed text. chose coincide 22a). recommended "rescind readjudicate court's order." 24a). 11. aliens, opportunity, days, submit [for legalization]." 2, supra (describing aliens); infra aliens). Services cross-appealed, injunction permit status. denial, 923 Appeals' judgment; thus, cross-appeal expresses signally cryptic form, "shall entries 1982 documented Form I-94, Arrival-Departure Record." negative implication, entry I-94 form. normal, port entry, valid-looking document (for visa) 235.1(f) broke residence, whereas crossing desolate portion border, avoiding inspection altogether, maintained intention modify statement then-INS Alan Nelson 8, Addendum 8; following. claiming comply excludability fraudulently procured ultimately ibid. 234), issue. chosen 50a); supra. "adequate time" 60a; Circuit, stay obliged work legalization, process applications. 63a-64a. stayed mandate Nos. 88-15046, 88-15127, 88-15128, 88-6447 (CA9, 1992) (staying mandate); Sept. (denying motion dissolve mandate), operating March received 300,000 Pet 83a. enforce penalizing fraudulent prepare statistical reports 1255a(c)(5)(A). description excludes Once denied, continue applied, 1255a(f)(4)(A). described supra; nn. force represented "any wishes secure surrendering office." Reply 9-10 (footnote addition, bar: Government." 1255a(f)(2). appears concede, 19, bar. drawn Article reasons refusing See, Buc kley 114, 680, curiam); Socialist Labor Party Gilligan, 406 583, 588, 92 1716, 1719, 317 (1972). prudential, motion, "cannot 138, 356, questions petition, fairly included touched briefs contends "if [challenged] rule[,] resolve." Post, true, how "firm prediction" "will benefit," considering fact, rule," reemphasize conditioned several nontrivial challenged. circumstance firmly "by unchallenged determined Similarly distinguishable STEVENS equate post, Contractors, association alleged "many regularly bid perform [defendant City]," 2299 omitted), historical allegation aside contracts ordinance." similar "she regulations," ____; heard "word mouth," proof counterfactual. Further, "injury fact" footing bidding process, loss contract," 2303; association's awarded relevant. seek, themselves. circumstance, becomes important know maintains over. underlying invalid. conditions knows conditions. over, extended, tells anything willingness satisfaction ripe; significant prevented practice). O'CONNOR's encounters difficulty. her "[i]t closed." original). [to] relies certainty untimeliness, confront flatly "court[s] reviewing "denial[s] adjustment." certainly interpret reliance, always entangle timing suing intended foreclose "Qualified Entity" (the designation intermediaries 1255a(c)(1)) Assistants. skip step. IV-5, indicating many assisted preparing forwards forth Manual. reflects motivated "charitable concern," "inform[ing] view deficient accepts fee, informed choice pay fee going relief." "rejection" argues really applications; sentence proves door open, "[i]f Assistant] insists routed clerk adjudicator routing slip deficiency(ies)." find, sentences to, articulated informed; says rejected. hint Assistant tell despite "rejection," wants preserve rights. little dealing pesky "won't 'no' answer." preserves realistic reply [INS's] 25a, "who deadline." 216. definition, broader, rather, meet forms "apply" "have INS," reading encompasses refuses (which lies heart parties' dispute), inclu des "learned ineligibility" being odd direct possible description. note 29, 1255a(a)(1)(A) broader given definition. authority." 1255a(f)(4)(B). reopened judge Board proceedings." 103.3(a)(3)(iii) represents subclass "facially-valid attempted advised attorney telephone 11-12 John Doe). 12-18 140). 204 (affidavit Pilar Cuen) (legalization counselor states "INS clients non-immigrant reentry"); 209 Joanne T. Stark) (immigration lawyer "aware discouraged past [LULAC members] made"); Ex. H, 135 Isabel Garcia Gallegos) Southern Arizona [have] rejected, otherwise, had, 1982"); Marc Van Der Hout) Francisco office post re-entered visa"). Only affiant incident. recounts: [1987] came She reception [that visa], told file." 200-201 Hout). significance unclear, telling (that is, legalization), completed ready payment reveals relatively surrounding unlikely, nevertheless substantial "advanced concerns. employee (as regulation) word, entitled. Since processing await involves programs; second. explains, IRCA ended thousands chance amnesty. human terms, difficult—perhaps impossible —for fortunate born appreciate fully value opportunity. offered hiding, stop running, 'belong' America. severe encountered decade review." dissenting). relevance analysis, finding here; assume overcome hurdles effectuate programs. prohibiting relied 28-29, late-filed bearing kind broad-based

Category: 8