Document: 385 U.S. 276 87 S.Ct. 483 17 L.Ed.2d 362 Elizabeth Rosalia WOODBY, Petitioner,v.IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE. Joseph SHERMAN, Petitioner, v. IMMIGRATION Nos. 40 and 80. Argued Nov. 16 17, 1966. Decided Dec. 12, Jacob A. Myers, Dayton, Ohio, for petitioner, Woodby. Forer, Washington, D.C., Sherman. Francis X. Beytagh, Jr., Cleveland, pro hac vice, by special leave of Court, Charles Gordon, respondent. Mr. Justice STEWART delivered the opinion Court. 1 The question presented these cases is what burden proof Government must sustain in deportation proceedings. We have concluded that it incumbent upon such proceedings to establish facts supporting deportability clear, unequivocal, convincing evidence. 2 In Sherman (No. 80), petitioner a resident alien who entered this country from Poland 1920 as 14-year-old boy. 1963 Immigration Naturalization Service instituted deport him ground he had re-entered United States 1938, following trip abroad, without inspection an alien.1 After hearing before inquiry officer, was ordered be deported, Board Appeals dismissed his appeal.2 3 Government's evidence showed obtained passport 1937 under name Samuel Levine, representing himself citizen. Someone using sailed France June 1937, proceeded Spain, returned December aboard S.S. Ausonia, admitted being examined alien. To traveled passport, introduced testimony Edward Morrow, American citizen fought Spanish Civil War. Morrow at first unable remember Levine or identify but eventually stated thought known 'Sam Levine,' seen while fighting Loyalists Spain during with Ausonia 1938. conceded recollection events occurring 27 years earlier imperfect, identification might mistaken. 4 It not clear standard officer on de novo review applied determining passport. At outset opinion, 'by reasonable, substantial probative evidence,' discussing was. Later established its contentions 'with solidarity far greater than required,' did further elucidate 'required.' 'established beyond any reasonable doubt' added 'presumption' used travel abroad. 'most unlikely hypothesis' someone other asserted 'the has borne establishing' deportable, indicating considered weight be. 5 Upon petition review, Court Second Circuit originally set aside order, proving doubt.3 court reversed itself, however, rehearing en banc, holding need only prove case 'reasonable, substantial, evidence.'4 granted certiorari, 384 904, 86 1345, 357. 6 Woodby 40), born Hungary Germany 1956 wife soldier. Deportation were against her she engaged prostitution after entry.5 A found deportable charged. 7 administrative brief period 1957, some months husband deserted her, claimed conduct product circumstances amounting duress. Without reaching validity duress defense, continued engage alleged terminated. discuss required bear establishing deportability, nor either them indicate degree certainty which their factual conclusions reached. merely demonstrated deportable. made 'apparent' ended, announced 'it establishes * *.' 8 denying Sixth explicitly deal issue persuasion imposed level, finding Board's underlying order 'supported record whole *." 9 prevailing case, '(i)f slate clean,' 'might well agree should similar denaturalization, where Supreme insisted 'clear, convincing' needs 'more bare preponderance evidence' prevail. But here,' thought, 'Congress spoken 350 F.2d 900. This view based two provisions Nationality Act use language connection orders. are § 106(a)(4) states 'if supported whole, shall conclusive,'6 242(b)(4) provides inter alia 'no decision valid unless evidence.'7 10 seems statutory addressed level proceedings, quite different subject—the scope judicial review. elementary crucial difference between is, course, commonplace law.8 most graphically illustrated criminal case. There prosecution generally elements offense doubt.9 if correct trial, limited ascertaining whether relied trier fact sufficient quality substantiality support rationality judgment. words, appellate ordinarily does ask itself believes trial guilt doubt, judgment evidence.10 11 That relates exclusively abundantly language, context, legislative history. Section 106 1961 'to create single, separate, form orders exclusion aliens States.'11 section entitled 'Judicial Review Orders Exclusion,' terms sole exclusive procedure for' 'judicial all final deportation.' Subsection specific directive courts petitions filed.12 12 hardly less provision relied, Act, also reviewing courts, and, insofar represents yardstick factfinder, goes, proof, rather nature based.13 declares measure 'valid'—a word implies scrutiny tribunal already reached facts. location containing dealing procedures little significance when remembered original 1952 contain framework review—although was, available habeas corpus otherwise. See Marcello Bonds, 349 302, 75 757, 99 L.Ed. 1107. And whatever ambiguity lie resolved Senate Report explained follows: 'The requirement means that, rests cannot said person conclusion reached, may because body differs body.'14 13 conclude, therefore, Congress kind traditionally been left judiciary resolve,15 resolution necessary interest evenhanded administration Act. 14 petitioners urge appropriate law imposes cases—the duty essential doubt. Government, hand, points out proceeding consequently one civil proceedings—the mere 15 sure, prosecution. Harisiades Shaughnessy, 342 580, 72 512, 96 586. syllogistically follow banished no higher applies negligence closed eyes drastic deprivations compelled our forsake bonds formed here go foreign land often contemporary identification. words apposite us, we solidity entailing consequences deportation, particularly old man lived forty Rowoldt Perfetto, 355 115, 120, 78 180, 183, 140. denaturalization allegations evidence.16 same expatriation cases.17 stranger law.18 No immediate hardship inflicted not, immediately least, result expulsion shores. many longer stronger family, social, economic ties become naturalized citizens. 18 hold grounds true.19 Accordingly, each aside, remanded directions remand as, consistent deemed appropriate.20 19 so ordered. 20 Judgment remanded. 21 CLARK, whom HARLAN joins, dissenting. 22 placing cases, usurped function fell swoop repealed long-established probative' placed Congress, substituted own standard. another long line tightened noose around neck immigration cases. I. 23 I 106(a)(4), amendment 1952, but, due deference, see how 'It clear' says, likewise Indeed, contrary, latter specifically enacted 24 Before 242(b) laws contained detailed concerning Kessler Strecker, 307 22, 34, 59 694, 700, 83 1082 (1939). Wong Yang Sung McGrath, 339 33, 70 445, 94 616 (1950), extended Administrative Procedure exempted procedural system 25 essence section, 242(b), notice 'special officer' Service; sets evidence'; authorizes Attorney General regulations. issuing those regulations Appeals. relationship agency examiner include requirements 'sole section.' time history expressly related 'burden proof' evidence.' 'reasonable' meant exclude 'unreasonable' 'irrational' carries obvious connotation tradition sufficiency evidence.1 overruling Sung, supra, carved overtones built-in procedure. 26 crystal reports both Houses 242(b). Committee Reports, S.Rep. No. 1137, 82d Cong., 2d Sess., 30; H.R.Rep. 1365, 57, U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News p. 1653, state simple understandable that: below.' 28 consistently adoption See, e.g., 120—121, 183—184, 140 (1957). 29 Shaughnessy Pedreiro, 48, 591, 868 (1955), once again Act's respecting reaction identical overruled supra. enacted, 1961, Just express provided: 30 '* (for review) determined solely General's findings fact, conclusive.' 31 Why passed holds, covered my comprehension—unless shadow boxing. believe 32 says failed Fault officer's phrase 'solidarity' 'far required.' apparently patterned Court's Rowoldt, 'solidity used. officers show followed Regulations General, i.e., administratively unbroken Matter Peralta, N. 43, 46. 33 now extends Schneiderman States, 320 118, 63 1333, 1796 (1943), much more oppressive deportation. They deprive citizenship previously conferred. rule follows principle vested rights can canceled proof; gives stability finality precious right-citizenship. An alien, enjoy conditional privilege matter grace. Both petitioners, shows, knew this, yet they remained years—46 Still, neither effort obtain citizenship. II. 34 By treating raising single ignores aspects greatly trouble me. sought six entry order. 106(a)(1) limits jurisdiction consideration 'filed later date order.' makes intended strictly enforced alleviate spectacle subject able remain periods employing dilatory legal tactics. 565, 87th 1st Sess. Since there limit reconsideration, CFR §§ 242.22, 103.5, permitting timely refusal reopen filed would negate congressional purpose behind insistence filing 106(a)(1). Lopez Department Justice, Service, Cir., 356 986, cert. denied, 839, 88, 73.2 35 holds true.' (Italics added.) 'engaged entry.' never contended properly established. prostitution. dispute involved centers activities arose ended conditions compelling stray ceased exist. me since affirmative defense bears defense. M—, 251. clearly shows authorities rejected Woodby's 'bizarre' story. Under familiar principles binding Universal Camera Corp. National Labor Relations Board, 340 474, 71 456, 95 nothing today affects conclusion. 36 regret powers Brethren prevent encroachment will place undue unintended dissent. 241(a)(2) 66 Stat. 204, U.S.C. 1251(a)(2), 'entered designated Prior bring within five illegal entry, 39 889 (1917), amended 155(a) (1946 ed.). Thus, prior law, commenced 1943. However, retroactively eliminated 241(d), 208, 1251(d). Developments Law, Nationality, Harv.L.Rev. 643, 683—684. conformity usual practice, independent determination issues examination record. Gordon Rosenfield, Law 46—47 (1959). 894. F.2d, 901. adopted reasoning Judge Friendly dissent decision. Judges Waterman Smith, majority, dissented. 241(a)(12) 207, 1251(a)(12), reason conduct, behavior activity became member classes specified paragraph (12) 212(a) Among 212(a)(12) 182, 1182(a)(12), 'Aliens prostitutes 651 (1961), 1105a(a)(4). 210 (1952), 1252(b)(4). Jaffe, Law: Burden Proof Scope Review, 79 914 (1966); Comment, 41 N.Y.U.L.Rev. 622 Standard Proceedings, Stan.L.Rev. 1237 (1966). McCormick, Evidence 681—685 (1954); Wigmore, 2497 (3d ed. 1940). E.g., Rutkin 343 130, 135, 571, 574, 833. For discussion variations alternatives rule, Goldstein, State Accused: Balance Advantage Criminal Procedure, 69 Yale L.J. 1149, 1157—1163 (1960). 1086, 2950. Exclusion 'Sec. 106. (a) prescribed by, 29, 1950, (64 1129; 68 961; 1031 et seq.), apply to, for, except that— '(4) conclusive 1105a(a). recognized itself: 'Finally, important mind distinction successfully. noted subsection (b)(4) 242 act speak produce validly V—-, N.Dec. 460, 463. 30. House contains substantially language. 1653. McBaine, Proof: Degrees Belief, Calif.L.Rev. (1944). 2488 2493, 2497—2498 1796; Baumgartner 322 665, 64 1240, 88 1525; Nowak 660, 955, 1048; Chaunt 364 350, 81 147, 120. Gonzales Landon, 920, 76 210, 100 806; Nishikawa Dulles, 129, 612, 659. 349(c) 656 1481(c). standard, even one, involving fraud, variety kinds adultery, illegitimacy child wedlock, lost wills, oral contracts make bequests, like. 2498 regardless length resided country. perhaps worth pointing out, practical matter, recent readily unequivocal 1105a(a) (1), 40, Woodby, petitioner's appeal March 8, 1963, motion reconsideration denied May 27, 1963. Petition upheld denial reconsider. pass whether, circumstances, power abuse discretion, assess full Following Ninth held, authority undertake Bregman 351 401. light decision, abandoned contention n. 3. Thus 1009(e)(5), 'substantial 1006 agencies acting 'reliable, probative, pattern held satisfied decides Giova Rosenberg, 379 18, 85 156, 90, reconsider reviewable. specify applied. depending concession point, waived. King Bridge Co. Otoe County, 120 225, 552, 623; Good Shot 179 87, 45 101.

Category: 1