Document: 395 U.S. 62 89 S.Ct. 1519 23 L.Ed.2d 101 IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Petitioner,v.Veljko STANISIC. No. 297. Argued Feb. 25, 1969. Decided May 19, Rehearing Denied June 23, See 987, 2125. Joseph J. Connolly, Washington, D.C., for petitioner, pro hac vice, by special leave of Court. G. Bernhard Fedde, Portland, Or., respondent. Mr. Justice HARLAN delivered the opinion 1 This case involves type hearing to which an alien crewman is entitled on his claim that he would suffer persecution upon deportation native land. The Court Appeals, 9 Cir., 393 F.2d 539, sustained respondent crewman's contention must be heard a inquiry officer1 in proceeding conducted under § 242(b) Immigration and Nationality Act.2 Petitioner, Naturalization Service, argues respondent's was properly determined district director.3 We brought here, 912, 235, 21 197 (1968), resolve conflict this score between decision below Appeals Second Circuit United States ex rel. Kordic v. Esperdy, 386 232 (1967). I. 2 Respondent, national Yugoslavia, aboard Yugoslav vessel, M/V Sumadija, when it docked at Coos Bay, Oregon, late December 1964. He requested issued 'D—1' conditional landing permit, accordance with 8 CFR 252.1(d)(1) 252(a)(1) Act.4 Under these provisions, Service may allow nonimmigrant temporary shore 3 'the period time (not exceeding twenty-nine days) during vessel or aircraft arrived remains port, if immigration officer satisfied intends depart arrived.' Ibid. 4 On January 6, 1965, while leave, appeared office Service. claimed feared prosecution return flatly stated not Sumadija. basis latter statement, 252(b) Act, District Director revoked permit. Section provides: 5 '(A)ny may, discretion, determines * does intend him, revoke permit land granted such provisions subsection (a)(1), take into custody, require master commanding receive detain him board aircraft, practicable, shall deported from expense transportation line States. Nothing section construed procedure prescribed 242 Act (sic) cases falling within subsection.' 6 makes no express exception whose subject persecution. However, 243(h) permits Attorney General withhold any country persecution, analogously, 253.1(e) then provided:5 7 'Any chapter who alleges cannot Communist, Communist-dominated, Communist-occupied because fear account race, religion, political paroled conditions set director having jurisdiction over area where located.' Thus, although admittedly deportable terms 252(b), immediately returned vessel. 7, offered opportunity present evidence support Respondent presented Director. Rather, contended had been given sufficient prepare hearing, also argued have general 242(b). ruled against and, absence probable ordered still port. 10 sought relief Oregon,6 which, without opinion, temporarily stayed referred matter back merits claim. after represented counsel evidence, held 'has (not) shown physically persecuted were Yugoslavia.' Appendix 22. 11 supplemental pleadings, Director's findings supported record. court rejected before officer, relying last sentence 'Nothing Vucinic (and Stanisic) 243 F.Supp. 113 (D.C.1965). 12 did appeal Court's decision. Instead, July petitioned Congress private bill, pending action deportation. Respondent's effort proved unsuccessful, 21, 1966, appear Yugoslavia. 13 following day, reasserted pursuant 242. subsequently Court, denied relief, both holding issue previously adversely 14 Ninth reversed. Stanisic 539 res judicata significant change circumstances: adverse determination unappealed approval thereof, based unstated premise Sumadija port;7 but now ship long since sal ed, deported. only authorized 'summary or, very limited vessel's departure, another arrangements made (his) departed.' F.2d, 542—543. Since neither met, could longer 1965 determination; de novo Act. II. 15 At outset, important recognize distinction whether statutorily something never contested respondent—and grant asylum otherwise alien. 16 provides generally applicable 'for determining deportability *.' specific crewmen D—1 permits. Neither sections concerned granting asylum. 17 Relief other hand, governed §§ 212(d)(5) 243(h). former authorizes General, 18 'parole as prescribe emergent reasons deemed strictly public interest applying admission 19 'to deems necessary reason.' 20 No statute prescribes what delegate procedure, provisions. By regulation, parole rests director, 212.5(a), 253.2; most aliens presently officer.8 242.8(a), 242.17(c). Prior 1960, regulation provided In Szlajmer 188 491 (1960), situation heard. responded promulgating 253.1(e), supra, 67, applied bar. hybrid. grounds are, purposes, identical those Act.9 adheres view has 'within States' technical sense phrase, see Leng Ma Barber, 357 185, 78 1072, 1246 (1958), 'parole' rather than 'withholding deportation.' Whatever terminological conceptual differences exist, substance same.10 22 provide all claims we reason why validly departed. It might argued, however, done so; designed govern determinations deportability; departure renders inapplicable (a suggestion consider reject Part III, below), likewise becomes inapplicable. applies, '(a)ny (of CFR) revoked'—precisely situation—and reference vel non, Granting its successor provision are free ambiguity, find dispositive agency responsible administering interpreted apply even E.g., (1967); Glavic Beechie, 225 24 (1963), aff'd 340 91 (1964). '(T)he ultimate criterion administrative interpretation, controlling weight unless plainly erroneous inconsistent regulation.' Bowles Seminole Rock & Sand Co., 325 410, 414, 65 1215, 1217, L.Ed. 1700 (1945). sum, immaterial 252(b)'s is, not, These two revocation deportability, reiterate contest either scores. do state should hear determine request That received due. III. 25 rest ground alone, however. Both (1967), assumed statutory entitlement s coextensive right here primarily basis. For balance thus make, arguendo, same assumption. conclude, contrary below, sailed. A. 26 deportable. nn. 2, supra. 27 history narrow found Report Senate Committee Judiciary, S.Rep. 1515, 81st Cong., 2d Sess., preceded enactment Alien traditionally privilege 'because necessity freeing international commerce unnecessary barriers considerations comity nations Id., t 546. A serious problem created, deserted their ships secreted themselves that: 28 'shore leave' seamen remain illegally constitutes one loopholes our whole system restriction control entry efforts apprehend encumbered many technicalities invoked behalf create incident enforcement laws troubled authorities years.' 550. 29 To ameliorate problem, recommended 30 'Authority officers arrived, satisfactory finding bona fide crewman, permission temporarily, remove country.' 558. 31 Unlike 242(b), procedures governing nor confine officer. B. 32 As noted, governs range only. entirely persons crewmen. enters obtaining all, 'D—2' allowing different n. 4, formal revocation—as distinguished actual deportation—takes place leaves American shores.11 Matter M—-, N.Dec. 127 (1953); 252.2; Cheng Fan Kwok 392 206, 207, 88 1970, 1971, 1037 (1968). 33 hypothesis, revocation, usually traveled far port,12 so burden transporting small; there readily identifiable to; brief exceed days, unlikely established personal business relationships short, expedited, minimum hardship inconvenience company him,13 34 evident language itself related 254.14 requires deport him. 254(a) imposes fine ship's master, inter alia, failure 'if required officer.' requirement modified term, practicable'; 254(c) correlatively 35 'If finds impracticable impossible, cause undue port arrival line, impracticable.' 36 contemplate arrived. preferably owned States,15 feasible, order means, company's expense. 37 recognized holds owner expenses further clearance until paid payment guaranteed.16 From concluded contemplates alternative arrangement departed, 254(c), hence applicable: became 38 agree 'clearance' sometimes accomplished arranged departs. If, sails guaranteed deportation, owner's liability way diminished. Government merely lost useful means compelling costs collected methods.17 Indeed, 254(c)'s financial responsibility instances applies variety situations, including held, departed.18 39 Strong policies conclusion commenced automatically abort If attacks director's federal court, stay least preliminary hearing. Even courts dockets less crowded major cities19 able several days more, often departed according schedule. little legal talent, moreover, manufacture colorable out cloth, delay proceedings once courts. Circuit's construction would, thus, encourage frivolous applications intentional delays assure Alternatively, dispose judges stays presenting meritorious 40 applicability. But conclude court's restrict scope degree intended practical matter, render useless function perform. 41 hold become finally effected leaves, circumstances provide—as 253.1(f) IV. 42 Director, provided: 43 'The physical *.'20 (Emphasis added.) 44 October 3, 11(f), 79 Stat. 918, amended substituting 'physical persecution' phrase 'persecution opinion.' Although conducted, contain persecution,' apparent read limitation regulation.21 45 believe, therefore, appropriate new standard, remand purpose.22 46 judgment reversed remanded consistent opinion. 47 ordered. 48 Judgment remanded. 49 BLACK, whom DOUGLAS MARSHALL join, dissenting. 50 Two relevant case. first forth 66 209, U.S.C. 1252(b), seeks number procedural safeguards specified insure full benefit complete fair harsh consequence can imposed him.1 second involved 252(b). involving enter summary procedure.2 mentioned, someone unconnected investigation trial rights notice, counsel, crossexamination witnesses. apparently seem authorize immediate arrest information coming time. question therefore insignificant suggested opinion—namely, alien's official title, 'District Director,' 'special crucially seaman about forced carefully greater fairness reliability proceedings. 51 regulations relied II independent holding. Among regulations, 242.8(a) '(i)n part,' namely 'Part Proceedings Determine Deportability Aliens States: Apprehension, Custody, Hearing, Appeal.' spell details statute, explicitly withholding (the provision).' contrast, authorizing decide issue, particular own 212(d) (5), remedy distinct 243(h), Government's 'requests instituted.' Brief Petitioner 37. serve followed purport specify fact applicable. differently meaning. concedes, 'not ambiguity,' ante, 72, course ambiguity precisely wording drawn. seems clear interpretation binding us. ambiguous, doubt my mind resolved favor seeking With due respect, I think argument goes beyond anything case, whatsoever avoiding fundamental procedures, 52 contends respondent, revoked. careful spelled came theD istrict made, justification fast ordinarily desirable existed. prior ship. Appeals. noted opinion: 53 (252(b)) (to requirements 242(b)) narrowly 'jumped ship' entered illegally, all. above, them vessels they overstayed day situations (§ procedures.' 544. 54 legislative quoted shows, truncated used need speed truly pressing—when subjected truncated, though already gone haste completing There suspect wanted deprived vital 55 affirm 'any specially qualified conduct classes 101(b)(4), 171, 1101(b)(4). duties. performs 'no functions issues exclusion cases, occasionally adjudicative proceedings.' C. Gordon H. Rosenfield, Law Procedure 5.7b, 5—49 id., 5.7. 1252(b): 'A alien, administer oaths, interrogate, examine, cross-examine witnesses, make determinations, orders participated investigative (except subsection) prosecuting functions. acting prescribe. Such include that— '(1) reasonable circumstances, nature charges will held; '(2) being (at Government) practice proceedings, choose; '(3) examine behalf, wite sses Government; '(4) valid reasonable, substantial, probative evidence. sole exclusive section.' charge wide 1.9c 103.1(f). 252(a), 220, 1282(a) 'No permitted except *. examination admissible agreed accept subsequent (b), time, event, exceed— arrived; depart, land, 252.1(d)(2), implement 252(a)(2) Fed.Reg. 11797 (December 8, 1961). Effective March 22, 1967, redesignated 253.1(f), 4341—4342. Because review action. (1968); 542 113, 115-117 (1965); 1009. Actually, sailed 16, date (January 1965), 1965). record always so. Until 1962, final regional commissioner 243.3(b)(2) (1958 rev.); Foti 375 217, 230, 84 306, 314, 281 (1963). substantial difference Commn ist-inspired reason, occasion States.' Compare (D.C.1963), aff'd, (5 Cir. 1964). terms, 'authorizes' consideration claims. responsive Permission terminates thereafter nothing 'revoke.' 252.2(d) 'crewman each proceeds coastwise touching foreign place; rejoin touches advance written agent so.' journey some distance infra, page 76. 221, 1284. doubtless accommodation light 'All incurred connection transferring impose, owners satisfaction General. *' 254(c). deported, And, question, security anticipated deporting i m 1968 Administrative Office Courts Ann.Rep., Tables C, D, X 214. 68; 18—22 passim. infected various constitutional errors, alleged bias combination prosecutorial, investigative, adjudicatory us, arguments, note remand, unconstitutional face. Likewise, premature whether, contravene Protocol Convention Relating Status Refugees, acceded November 1, 1968. Dept State Bull., Vol. LIX, 1535, p. 538. follows: witnesses thi 'Pursuant detention borne company.

Category: 1