Document: 471 U.S. 444 105 S.Ct. 2098 85 L.Ed.2d 452 IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Petitioner,v.Bernardo RIOS-PINEDA and Estarnilada Rios-Pineda De Rios. No. 83-2032. Argued March 20, 1985. Decided May 13, Syllabus Section 244(a)(1) of the Immigration Nationality Act allows Attorney General to suspend an alien's deportation if alien has been present in United States for a continuous period at least seven years, is good moral character, demonstrates that would result extreme hardship or spouse child, who citizen. Even these prerequisites are satisfied, discretion refuse deportation. While itself does not provide reopening suspension proceedings once denied, promulgated regulations under providing motion reopen will be denied unless sought on basis circumstances have arisen subsequent original hearing. The delegated his authority special inquiry officers Naturalization Service (INS), whose decisions subject review by Board Appeals (BIA). Respondents husband wife, citizens Mexico, were smuggled illegally into 1974. Respondent was apprehended 1978, and, although request he granted permission return voluntarily Mexico lieu deportation, refused leave as promised. Deportation then instituted against respondents, time had who, being born States, Following December 1978 hearing, Judge respondents' ordered their BIA dismissed appeal. After Court 1982 reversed BIA's decision remanded case further because respondents accrued requisite years' presence during pendency appeal, moved requested meantime having second child States. grounds, inter alia, additional available only delayed departure frivolous appeals conduct shown blatant disregard immigration laws. directed proceeding, holding, made out prima facie factors relied did justify its refusal reopen. Held: proceeding within General's discretion. If, required regulations, based intervening demonstrating 7-year residence hardship, General, acting through BIA, nevertheless deny motion. Although when first denied; years baseless appeals. And abuse denying flagrant violation laws entering well respondent husband's willful failure depart after do so honored INS. Pp. 449-452. 720 F.2d 529 (CA 8 1983), reversed. Alan Ira Horowitz, Washington, D.C., petitioner. Lawrence H. Rudnick, Philadelphia, Pa., respondents. Justice WHITE delivered opinion Court. 1 (Act), 66 Stat. 214, amended, U.S.C. § 1254(a)(1), alien. To warrant such action, must physically demonstrate alien, "spouse, parent, citizen lawfully admitted permanent residence." Ibid. it remains suspend, INS v. Jong Ha Wang, 450 139, 144, n. 5, 101 1027, 1030, 67 123 (1981); Jay Boyd, 351 345, 353, 76 919, 924, 100 L.Ed. 1242 (1956). Congress statutory mechanism allowing procedure. CFR 3.2 (1985). Under which authorized so, 1103, §§ 242.8, 242.21 2 Respondents, married couple, natives Mexico. entered 1972. Apprehended, returned early 1974 threat Two months later, wife paid professional smuggler $450 transport them this country, without inspection smuggler's efforts. again agents 1978. At request, He also two extensions depart, but ultimately declined both By time, given birth country. A hearing held conceded illegal entry, deportability, Judge, ruling ineligible they satisfied requirement physical presence, appealed order asserting variety arguments establish violated rights child. rejected 3 In July 1980, filed petition Appeals, automatically stayed pursuant 1105a(a)(3). Asking court suspended, asserted substantially same claims BIA: should Miranda warnings, unlawful de facto considered years. 1982, 15 briefs filed, proceedings. Department Justice, 673 225 (CA8). view appeals, Id., 227. Because development, allow 60 days file cautioned "to give careful thorough consideration . if, indeed, one filed." 228, 5. During gave 4 They alleged children deprived right education schools social assistance. general harm themselves from "low skills educations" lower standard living 5 First, timely served proper official specified days. Second, discretionary relief unwarranted, since facts—seven child—were Third, returning country departure, payment enter illegally, promising all evinced laws, disentitling favorable exercise 6 proceeding. (CA8 1983). reopen, panel concluded, filed,1 find merit any legal pressed prior frivolous. Neither could some measure cases. 534. 7 We certiorari, 469 1071, 562, 83 503 (1984), involves important issues bearing scope motions civil requests recently indicated granting matter with BIA. Phinpathya, 464 183, 188, 6, 104 584, 588, 78 401 (1984). Thus, even assuming eligibility (1981). decides discretion, need consider whether threshold requirements met. Bagamasbad, 429 24, 97 200, 50 190 (1976); see U.S., 143-144, S.Ct., 9 Given broad context, we cannot agree Appeals' holding denial impermissible regulation, separate quite adequate reasons. 10 motion, denied;2 noted manner recognized. our view, exceed doing so. 11 thought appeal resulted But true No substance found points raised themselves, merit. purpose correct errors occurred initial determination deportability; permit indefinite stalling hope eventually satisfying prerequisites. One wishes remain already substantial incentive prolong litigation delay long possible. See, e.g., Sung Ja Oum INS, 613 51, 52-54 (CA4 1980); Hibbert 554 17, 19-21 (CA2 1977). can, exercising legitimately avoid creating refusing those became eligible passage while meritless dragged on. See Leblanc 715 685, 693 (CA1 1983); Agustin 700 564, 566 (CA9 Balani 669 1157, 1160-1162 (CA6 1982); Der-Rong Chour 578 464, 467-468 1978), cert. 440 980, 99 1786, 239 (1979); Schieber 171 U.S.App.D.C. 312, 320-321, 520 44, 52-53 (1975). 12 impact other rule pointed case. deportability. Nonetheless, over six later virtue administering country's confront onerous task addition judicially augmented incentives take engage repeated violations, undertake solely drag process. Administering General. commits definition standards delegate instance, "and construction application th[ese] standard[s] overturned reviewing simply may prefer another interpretation statute." supra, 1031. 13 sure federal law rejection considerations "irrelevant" unpersuasive. aliens have, way, untenable suggest no individual distinguish among flagrancy nature violations. There difference degree between enters legally, staying beyond terms visa, inspection. Nor everyone repeatedly assistance smuggler. Furthermore, can certainly apprehended, comply honor previous agreements report voluntary departure. Accordingly, convinced conduct. 14 This case, therefore, involve unreasoned arbitrary Here explanation grounded legitimate concerns about administration determined particular government separated powers, judiciary usurp Congress' grant applying what approximates novo appellate review. 144-145, 1031; 195-196, 592-93. conclude here reverse Appeals. So ordered. 16 POWELL took part issue before Court, assume, deciding, filing established service wrong decision. F.2d, 532. administrative practice treated minor absences breaking period, neither courts nor ever coupled entry months' absence, anything less than meaningful interruption period. Not explained, written decision, App. Pet. Cert. 27a, absence clear. Heitland 551 495, 503-504 (CA2), 434 819, 98 59, 54 75 (1977); Segura-Viachi 538 91, 92 (CA5 1976); Barragan-Sanchez Rosenberg, 758, 760 1972); generally 193-194, 591-92.

Category: 1