Document: 450 U.S. 139 101 S.Ct. 1027 67 L.Ed.2d 123 IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICEv.JONG HA WANG and Kyung Hwa Wang. No. 80-485. March 2, 1981. Rehearing Denied April 27, See 451 964, 2037. PER CURIAM. 1 Section 244 of the Immigration Nationality Act (Act), 66 Stat. 214, as amended, 8 U.S.C. § 1254(a)(1), provides that Attorney General in his discretion may suspenddeportation adjust status an otherwise deportable alien who (1) has been physically present United States for not less than seven years; (2) is a person good moral character; (3) "a whose deportation would, opinion General, result extreme hardship to or spouse, parent, child, citizen lawfully admitted permanent residence."1 The authorized delegate powers under Act, 1103, authority delegated by regulation specified authorities Naturalization Service. CFR 2.1 (1979).2 2 issue usually arises alien's hearing. It can arise, however, it did this case, on motion reopen after duly ordered. itself does expressly provide reopen, but regulations promulgated allow sucha procedure.3 also shall "state new fact be proved at reopened hearing supported affidavits other evidentiary material." 3.8(a) (1979). Motions are thus permitted those cases which events circumstances occurring order would satisfy extreme-hardship standard 244. Such motions will granted "when prima facie case eligibility relief sought established." Matter Lam, 14 I. & N.Dec. 98 (BIA 1972). Sipus, 229 3 Respondents, husband wife, natives citizens Korea first entered January 1970 nonimmigrant treaty traders. They were remain until 10, 1972, they remained beyond date without permission found November 1974. privilege voluntarily departing February 1, 1975. do so. Instead, applied adjustment 245 1255, ineligible July 15, 1975.4 Their appeal from ruling was dismissed Board ofImmigration Appeals October 1977. Respondents then filed second their proceedings December 1977, time claiming suspension Act. had satisfied 7-year-continuous-physical-presence requirement section. alleged respondents' two American-born children because neither child spoke Korean lose "educational opportunities" if forced leave country. claimed economic themselves resulting liquidation assets possible loss. None allegations sworn materials, appeared all close relatives, aside children, resided respondents purchased dry-cleaning business August some three years deportable. valued $75,000 provided income $650 per week. owned home 1974 $60,000. $24,000 savings account $20,000 miscellaneous assets. Liabilities approximately $81,000. 4 denied hearing, concluding failed demonstrate either so entitle them discretionary noted mere showing detriment sufficient establish Pelaez v. INS, 513 F.2d 303 (CA5), cert. denied, 423 892, 96 190, 36 124 (1975). This particularly true since "significant financial resources there [was] nothing suggest college-educated male respondent could find suitable employment Korea." With respect claims involving ruled loss educational opportunities theyoung relatively affluent, educated parents constitute within meaning 5 Court Ninth Circuit, sitting en banc, reversed. 622 1341 (1980). Contrary Board's holding, court reasoned statute should liberally construed effectuate its ameliorative purpose. combined effect allegation harm minor thought hard discern impact interests requiring where "consider total potential family." Id., 1349. 6 erred respects. First, ignored requires seeking allege support affidavit material particular facts hardship. Here, main conclusory unsupported affidavit. By such motion, circumvented aspect regulation, obviously designed permit select only reliably indicating specific recent render matter children.5 7 Secondly, more fundamentally, improvidently encroached confers delegates. crucial question what constitutes "extreme hardship." These words self-explanatory, reasonable men easily differ construction. But commits definition instance delegates, construction application overturned reviewing simply prefer another interpretation statute. considered nor suffer well settled insufficient requirements any event significant while finding Mr. Wang Korea. followed serious deprivation returned Finally, believe "young ofaffluent, parents" subject deprivations amount In making these determinations, acting authority. As we see it, indicated unusual proceedings. nevertheless produces evidence "hardship different severe suffered ordinary deported." F.2d, 1346. Also, Judge Goodwin observed dissent, majority strongly prevail understanding 1352. taking course, extended "writ proper scope deprives substantial portion 244(a) vests him." 1351 (Sneed, J., dissenting). 9 delegates have construe hardship" narrowly deem wise narrow consistent with language, indicates exceptional nature remedy. Moreover, Government legitimate interest creating official procedures handling readily identify raising meritorious considerations. Under below, many aliens obtain based upon quite minimal showings. stated dissent "by using blueprint, foreign visitor fertility, money, ability stay out trouble police change tourist student resident inconvenience immigration quotas. strategy fair waiting quota." 1352 (Goodwin, further relaxed "is likely shift administration Service court." 1351. 10 We convinced exceed ordering reopened. Accordingly, petition certiorari granted, judgment 11 So 12 BRENNAN, MARSHALL BLACKMUN grant give plenary consideration. Initially, no deportation, sole remedy private bill Congress. Foti 375 217, 222, 84 306, 310, 281 (1963). measure statutory included Alien Registration 1940, 54 670. predecessor 244, demonstrated "exceptional extremely 1952, 244(a)(1), Pub.L. 414, 214. provision amended require show hardship," Oct. 24, 1962, 87-885, 4, 76 1248. General's power Commissioner Naturalization, permits redelegate through appropriate regulations. consider applications hearings special inquiry officers, decisions review Appeals, §§ 242.8, 242.21 Bastidas 609 101, 103, n. (C.A.3 1979). raised already made decision case. 3.2 Title (1979) pertinent part: "Motions unless appears offered available discovered presented former hearing; purpose affording opportunity apply form . basis arisen subsequent hearing." Relief judge determined visa numbers nonpreference immigrants available, rendering requested relief. he given failure move Salt Lake City Wang's sponsoring employer located, causing doubt whether services needed. Other Courts enforced 3.8 See, e. g., Oum 613 51, (CA4 1980); Acevedo 538 918, 920 (CA2 1976). Tupacyupanqui-Marin 447 603, 607 (CA7 1971); Luna-Benalcazar 414 254, 256 (CA6 1969). Prior procedures, denial solely Board. Arakas Zimmerman, 200 322, 323-324, (CA3 1952). framed negatively; directs certain showings made. affirmatively condition. Thus, determining Villena (CA9 1980) (en banc) (Wallace, Wallace INS proof case: "If mean anything, must latitude deciding when right restrictive. Granting too freely endless delay creative fertile enough continuously produce waste efforts judges called preside automatically required allegations." 1362.

Category: 1