Document: 485 U.S. 94 108 S.Ct. 904 99 L.Ed.2d 90 IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Petitionerv.Assibi ABUDU. No. 86-1128. March 1, 1988. Syllabus Respondent, a native and citizen of Ghana, overstayed his visa. After he pleaded guilty in 1981 to drug charges, deportation proceedings were initiated, at which expressly declined seek asylum as refugee. In 1982, was ordered deported, 1984, the Board Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissed appeal. 1985, while petition for review Court pending, respondent filed motion with BIA requesting reopening proceeding enable him apply withholding deportation. He claimed that had well-founded fear if returned Ghana life freedom would be threatened by government, seized power 1981. Moreover, received surprise visit from former acquaintance who become government official who, believed, attempting entice return order force disclose whereabouts brother other enemies. The denied respondent's both on ground failed make out prima facie case eligibility alternative explain reasonably decision not request first instance. noted all facts set forth been available time hearing, except 1984 visit, may have fact purely social visit. consolidated petitions affirmed order, but reversed denying reopen remanded further proceedings. Stating sole issue whether made reopening, court ruled appropriate standard judicial strict applied when passing summary judgment, rather than an abuse-of-discretion standard. Held: 1. Regardless what holds movant has established underlying relief sought (an decided here), is BIA's denial based its finding introduced previously unavailable, material evidence or, application case, explained failure initially. reasons why motions are disfavored comparable those rehearing new trials basis newly discovered evidence—particularly strong public interest bringing litigation close promptly consistent giving adversaries fair opportunity develop present their respective cases. analogy judgment but, instead, trial criminal evidence, moving party bears heavy burden. Pp. 104—110. 2. If timely asylum, supported factual allegations exhibits reopen, Judge required grant evidentiary hearing. However, alien already found deportable much heavier burden advances reopen. did abuse discretion it held prior completion initial proceeding. 110 111. 802 F.2d 1096 (CA 9 1986), reversed. STEVENS, J., delivered opinion Court, Members joined, KENNEDY, took no part consideration or case. Robert H. Klonoff, petitioner. Dorothy A. Harper, Los Angeles, Cal., respondent. Justice STEVENS Court. 1 Regulations promulgated Attorney General authorize aliens file evidence. Denials such subject United States courts appeals. question this should denials under standard, petitioner contends, held. (CA9 1986). Consistently our cases confirming broad considering we conclude applies therefore reverse Appeals. 2 * entered 1965 student. While attending medical school 1973, spent summer vacation then reentered student visa authorized remain until 1976. becoming licensed physician, married American 1981, charges obtain narcotic drugs (Demerol) fraud. due course, designated England country necessary On July deported,1 August 14, 3 Respondent Ninth Circuit. February motion, affidavits exhibits, accept regime power. His largely after current carried systematic campaign persecution against political enemies certain friends among targets campaign. unsolicited high government. visitor invited ostensibly because qualified physicians short supply, concluded actually wanted 4 stated granting this: 5 "A purpose applying will only granted where assert claim 8 CFR § 208.11. . Nor unless offered material, available, could presented original §§ 3.2, 103.5, 242.22. ." App. Pet. Cert. 15a. 6 208.11 grounds, either sufficed. First, proceedings, Naturalization Service (INS Agency) regulations.2 support holding, continued hearing November 10, April 29, give do so, further, motion—except 1984—had With respect observed "the admittedly long-time friend paying visit." 17a. 7 Second, also show clear probability within meaning 243(h) Nationality Act (Act), 66 Stat. 214, amended, U.S.C. 1253(h),3 eligible "refugee," see 1101(a)(42), 208 Act, 1158.4 affidavit offered, there satisfactory explanation details relationship might lead persecution. conjectures about probable threats too speculative constitute showing When petitioned pending order,5 claims. latter began noting although "wide discretion" deny normally reviewed "abuse discretion," issue" "presented reopening." F.2d, 1099-1100. "[w]hen restricts [refusing reopen] review." Id., 1100 (internal quotation omitted). reasoned: "Upon must draw reasonable inferences favor A analogous judgment; each accompanied presents 'proof desired findings [of case] contradicted overruled evidence.' Maroufi v. INS, 772 597, 599 (9th Cir.1985). cases, drawn whose entitlement stake: non-moving Fed.R.Civ.P. 56 seeking 3.2. See, e.g., Diebold, Inc., 369 654, 655, 82 993, 994, 176 (1962) ('choice subsidiary contained submitted [is inappropriate]. materials viewed light most favorable opposing motion.') 10 "[F]or purposes limited screening function 'inherently unbelievable.' Hernandez-Ortiz [v. INS ], 777 [509,] 514 [CA9 1985]. 11 12 "While Ghanian benign, viewed, Dr. Abudu suggests, threatening. Viewing must, persecution." 1101-1102 (citations 13 Although instance, Government contended "petitioner neither belatedness nor relief," Brief Nos. 84-7686 86-7075 (CA9), p. 16 (emphasis added), discuss, separate matter, "failure explain" decision. Appeals' statement [in 1100, reveals seems blended two grounds into one.6 14 certiorari described involving extent reviewing defer ruling proceedings." 8. Like opinion, questions presented, though, clearly upon reopen,7 reported us, incorrectly, before Circuit well founded Opposition 20. Petitioner's reply memorandum, eliminated any possible doubts asking us resolve: 15 "[T]he important [is] correctly significant adequately previous (see 208.11)." Reply Memorandum Petitioner n. 2.8 Thus, certiorari, 480 930, 107 1564, 757 (1987), decide substantive issues constitutes establishing persecution, applies, initially rests squarely grounds,9 determine conclusion outset. II 17 There least three independent hold sought. today, explained. 3.2 initially, (1987). (The regulations may, involve incremental significance whatever allegedly movant.) We today discretion. Third, ultimate discretionary (asylum, suspension deportation, adjustment status, deportation), leap ahead, were, over threshold concerns (prima evidence/reasonable explanation), simply even they met, entitled relief. consistently third Rios-Pineda, 471 444, 105 2098, 85 452 (1985) (suspension deportation); Bagamasbad, 429 24, 97 200, 50 190 (1976) (adjustment status). 18 discussed one dicta: 19 "[Section 3.2] framed negatively; directs showings made. It does affirmatively require particular condition. construed provide determining circumstances reopened." Jong Ha Wang, 450 139, 144, 5, 101 1027, 1031, 67 123 (1981). 20 This footnote, subsequent citations it, supra, U.S., 449, S.Ct., 2101-2102; Phinpathya, 464 183, 188, 6, 104 584, 588-589, 78 401 (1984),10 stand proposition relief; is, glosses served type denial, refuses itself nature, surmounted requisite thresholds explanation. 21 But reaching alien's point mandatory called play regarding specific, requirements That given determine, sufficient step toward relief, produced (§ 3.2), and, her 208.11). decisions review. 22 rehearing,11 evidence.12 relevance pointedly recently quoted approval: " 'If mean anything, some latitude deciding right restrictive. Granting freely permit endless delay creative fertile enough continuously produce establish waste efforts immigration judges preside hearings automatically [, requirement disputed case].' (quoting Wallace's dissenting Villena 622 1352, 1362 1980) (en banc) companion Wang ). 23 As detailed above, purported "whether [respondent] 1100. so doing, appears conflated quite indeed evidence.13 To reasoning addresses asylum,14 rejected Circuits panels Circuit.15 never suggested ambiguities averments resolved movant's favor, analogized judgment. uniformly Taylor Illinois, 484 400, 414, 18, 646, 98 798 (1988) (citing case). tenor General's regulations, plainly disfavor See 2, supra. sum, adjudications administrative agencies degree political16—and often agency governed specific statutory commands—INS officials exercise especially sensitive functions implicate foreign relations,17 deference reconsideration contexts greater context. III 24 doubt 208.6 (1987) (requiring appearance officer application) 208.10(c) (permitting presentation proceedings). equally convinced, however, sufficiency attach untimeliness, evaluating can prove complied regulation requiring during 25 hesitation concluding event uncertain meaning, arbitrary unreasonable regard providing additional considered prompt 26 portion 27 ordered. 28 KENNEDY argued instead marriage status 1255(a). adjustment-of-status application, 28a, conviction constituted nonwaivable excludability, 1182(a)(23) (1982 ed., Supp. IV), determination, 24a. Title provides part: "[A asylum] exclusion fails shall frivolous, absent contrary." "Motions hearing; affording form arisen hearing." Stevic, 467 407, 2489, 81 321 (1984) (mandatory "life threatened" account race, religion, etc.). moved Motion Reopen Permit Apply Asylum Request Withholding Deportation (pp. 14-19 Pleadings Record), focus throughout discussion maintain same focus. obscure holding requests. requests; accordingly, determination "evidence [on reopening] hearing," ibid., regardless asserted alien. Further, since requests "made institution pursuant section Act," 208.3(b) (1987); since, normally, relevant identical claims," 1096, 1102 1986) (case below), Matter Mogharrabi, Interim Dec. 3028, (BIA June 12, 1987) ("[T]he core testimony applications almost every virtually same"); easier face usually dispositive request. appeals denies infra. Cardoza-Fonseca, 421, 1207, 434 ("well-founded persecution" contains subjective objective components, proof more likely occur deported). cross-petition writ holding. Early state, correctly, belated 1099. later commented: "The incorrectly considerations relied making prohibition claims existence relief." 1102. erroneous. Board's actual was: "We satisfied careful record 208.11; Escobar, I & N 412 1979). aware problems associates facing, yet apparently asylum. Now, relies heavily considerations. Given now bases persuaded member alarming explains confusion led addressing one. "QUESTIONS PRESENTED "1. Whether plausible arbitrary. "2. BIA, alien." (I). comes different posture (1984). There, issued similar today's Stevic (1) unavailable thus overcome (2) "failed submit evidence" (that Yugoslavia opinion). 411, 3, 2491, 3. change law between Stevic's changed legal claim, new, lenient reversed, gaining altered Refugee 1980. case—and accordingly suggest here just —the crucial difference depended altered, depend how states matter. Unlike memorandum asked resolve brief opposition nature Just last Term "[t]here obviously ambiguity term like 'well-founded fear' concrete through process case-by-case adjudication." 448, 1221. begun post-Cardoza-Fonseca "well-founded (after canvassing various approaches taken Courts Appeals, adopts general Fifth Guevara Flores 786 1242 (1986), cert. denied, 1565, viz., "that applicant shows person persecution"). express recent formulation. attempts distinguish arguing key (whether result extreme hardship alien) 1254(a)(1) 1103; 2.1 144-146, 1031-1032, (1981), whereas determined statute, 1158 1101(a)(42)(A). continues, successor value arose setting, setting. Without commenting validity varying degrees settings, note correct, irrelevant claim. defining grounds—and reopen—whatever distinction exist affect address today. Bowman Transportation, Inc. Arkansas-Best Freight System, 419 281, 294-296, 95 438, 446-447, 42 447 (1974) (reopening Interstate Commerce Commission licensing "in extraordinary circumstances"); Cities Campbell FERC, 248 U.S.App.D.C. 267, 278, 770 1180, 1191 Federal Energy Regulatory "a matter discretion, reserved Duval Corp. Donovan, 650 1051, 1054 1981) (reconsideration Mine Safety Health Review "addressed body's "[d]enial overturned clearest discretion"); Nance EPA, 645 701, 717 (CA9) ("The cannot constant consider facts, agency, appropriate, reconsider characterized discretion"), sub nom. Crow Tribe Indians, Montana 454 1081, 102 635, 70 615 Tucker, 836 334, 336 (CA7 1988) (new "would probably acquittal trial"); Vergara, 714 21, (CA5 1983) ("[S]tandard [grounds evidence] sound court"); C. Wright, Practice Procedure 557, 315 (1982) (motions "are favored great caution"). Aviles-Torres 790 1433, 1436 earlier elements motion); Bahramnia 782 1243, 1245 (CA5) (requirements "additional establishment eligibility"), 479 398, 93 352 (1986); Ananeh-Firempong 766 621, 627 (CA1 1985) requirement); Duran 756 1338, 1340, (two asylum: 208.11); Samimi 992, 994 ("To justify sought, raise (1983). Somewhat related second offer 242.22 (1983)"). view validity, save observation, infra, 111, untimeliness reopening. Torres-Hernandez 812 1262, 1264 (abuse-of-discretion grounds); Sakhavat 796 1201, 1203 Conti 780 698, 701 626 alleging facts); Riasati 738 1115, 1119 (CA10 1984) materiality Motamedi 713 575, 576 abused explaining initially); LeBlanc 715 685, 689 (suggesting permits "decide bar, assertedly legitimate not, allow suspension"); 994-995 Chae Kim Ro 670 114 1982) Au Yi Lau 181 99, 107, 555 1036, 1044 (1977) ("At most, [§ dictates advanced motion"); also, Brown 249 333, 337, 775 383, 387 3.8 lack support). Northern Pipeline Construction Co. Marathon Pipe Line Co., 458 50, 67-70, 2858, 2868-2871, 73 598 (plurality opinion) (Constitution authorizes Congress delegate adjudication "public rights" non-Article judges); id., 91, 2882 (REHNQUIST, concurring judgment) ("public doctrine sustain powers Bankruptcy 1978, appellant's contract suit). Cf., Hampton Mow Sun Wong, 426 88, 101-102, 96 1895, 1904-1905, 48 495 character narrow review").

Category: 1