Court Opinion

ID: 2963625
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:13:09.756392+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:42:44.024592
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

          O    c    t    o    b    e    r      5    ,      1    9    9    5
                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                ______________________

          No. 95-1112

                                ANTONIO JOSE P. MOTTA,

                                 Plaintiff, Appellee,

                                          v.

             DISTRICT DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION SERVICES,

                                Defendant, Appellant.

                                   _______________

                                     ERRATA SHEET
                                     ERRATA SHEET

               The  opinion  of this  Court issued  on  August 8,  1995, is
          amended as follows:

               Page 2, line 12:  Delete "INS's"

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                 ____________________

        No. 95-1112

                                ANTONIO JOSE P. MOTTA,

                                 Plaintiff, Appellee,

                                          v.

             DISTRICT DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION SERVICES,

                                Defendant, Appellant.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

                   [Hon. Douglas P. Woodlock, U.S. District Judge]
                                              ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                 Selya, Circuit Judge,
                                        _____________

                           Campbell, Senior Circuit Judge,
                                     ____________________

                               and Cyr, Circuit Judge.
                                        _____________

                                 ____________________

            Charles   E.  Pazar,   Attorney,  Office   of  Immigration,  Civil
            ___________________
        Division, with whom Frank W. Hunger, Assistant Attorney General, Civil
                            _______________
        Division, and  Emily Anne  Radford, Office of  Immigration Litigation,
                       ___________________
        Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, were on brief for
        appellant.
            Joseph S. Callahan for appellee.
            __________________

                                 ____________________

                                    August 8, 1995
                                 ____________________

                                          2

                      Per  Curiam.    Respondent-appellant,  the District
                      ___________

            Director  of  the  Immigration  and   Naturalization  Service

            ("INS"),  appeals from  the  judgment of  the district  court

            regarding  appellee Antonio Jose Pacheco Motta's petition for

            writ  of habeas corpus.  Motta v. District Director, INS, 869
                                     _____    ______________________

            F. Supp. 80, 98 (D. Mass. 1994).  Facing imminent deportation

            under  8  U.S.C.    1182(a)(2)(A)(I)  (Supp.  V 1994),  Motta

            petitioned for  the  writ, alleging  that  his right  to  Due

            Process under  the Fifth  Amendment had been  violated during

            the course of his  earlier deportation proceedings.  Although

            the district court did  not order his release, it  stayed his

            deportation until  the Board  of Immigration Appeals  ("BIA")

            could issue a  decision on Motta's  pending motion to  reopen

            his deportation proceeding, and for ninety days thereafter to

            permit review  of that decision,  if necessary,  by the  U.S.

            Court  of  Appeals for  the  First  Circuit.   Id.   The  INS
                                                           ___

            appealed.  The BIA has not yet issued a decision.

                      During  oral argument,  we raised with  counsel the

            possibility that a settlement might be  in the best interests

            of both parties.  Counsel for the INS  indicated that the INS

            might  be  willing to  extend to  Motta  a temporary  stay of

            deportation comparable to that  ordered by the district court

            if the lower court decision    establishing what the INS sees

            as  a  dangerous and  erroneous  precedent     were  vacated.

            Counsel for Motta  indicated that this  might be a  desirable

                                         -3-
                                          3

            resolution  for his client as well, since it removes any risk

            that  this Court  would agree  with the  INS and  reverse the

            district  court's  stay  of  deportation.    At  the  end  of

            argument,   we  directed   counsel  to  discuss   a  possible

            settlement with their clients and to advise this Court within

            10  days as to whether  such an agreement  would be possible.

            The  INS subsequently informed this  Court that the INS would

            stay Motta's deportation during the pendency of his appeal to

            the BIA and for  an additional ten days thereafter  to afford

            time  to file  a  petition for  review  before the  Court  of

            Appeals, if necessary.  Motta's counsel has indicated that he

            accepts the tendered INS stay.

                      There now  being no actual controversy  between the

            two parties, we hold that this  appeal is moot and vacate the

            lower court's decision.   United States v. Munsingwear, Inc.,
                                      _____________    _________________

            340 U.S. 36,  39-40 (1951).   In vacating  the lower  court's

            decision, we have taken pains to consider whether this appeal

            falls  within the Supreme Court's prohibition against vacatur

            in U.S. Bancorp Mortgage Co. v.  Bonner Mall Partnership, 115
               _________________________     _______________________

            S. Ct.  386  (1994).   We  conclude that  it  does not.    In

            Bancorp, the  Court held that "[w]here  mootness results from
            _______

            settlement . . . , the losing party has voluntarily forfeited

            his  legal remedy  by  the ordinary  processes  of appeal  or

            certiorari, thereby  surrendering his claim  to the equitable

                                         -4-
                                          4

            remedy of vacatur.   The  judgment is  not unreviewable,  but

            simply unreviewed by his own choice."  Id. at 392.  
                                                   ___

                      Here, given the different posture of this case, the

            equities plainly  favor vacatur.  The INS  did not by its own

            initiative relinquish its right to vacatur, as the petitioner

            did in Bancorp.   Rather, the INS has at  all times sought to
                   _______

            pursue its appeal;  it has agreed to consider settlement only

            at  the suggestion  of  this Court,  the proposed  settlement

            being an  inexpensive, simple, and speedy  way to accommodate

            the  interests of both parties.  As the INS has not initiated

            the relinquishment  of  its right  to  the remedy,  the  same

            equitable calculus  underlying Bancorp is not  present.  Nor,
                                           _______

            given  this   Court's  involvement  and  initiative   in  the

            proceedings, does vacatur in this case implicate the concerns

            expressed  by the  Bancorp Court  about giving  parties undue
                               _______

            control over judicial precedents.  We see no appreciable harm

            to the orderly functioning of the federal  judicial system by

            vacating judgment.

                      To be sure,  it can  be argued  that depriving  the

            public and the  judicial system of the precedential  value of

            the district court's opinion works a kind of harm.  But we do

            not believe that  such a species of harm is  entitled to take

            priority  over  the parties'  best  interests.   Placing  the

            former  above the  latter  would be  inequitable.   This case

            contrasts with the  usual appeal, where  vacatur is only  one

                                         -5-
                                          5

            consideration among others in  a settlement.  Here,  the INS,

            as  a repeat player before the courts, is primarily concerned
                                                      _________

            with  the precedential effect of the decision below.  If that

            decision   stands,  all   possibility  of  a   settlement  is

            eliminated.   If  it is  vacated, the  appellee acquires  the

            absolute  certainty   of  not   being  deported,   while  the

            government  saves the costs and  risk of litigation     a win

            for  both sides.  It is true  the Bancorp Court discusses and
                                              _______

            rejects  the  possible impact  of  its  rule in  discouraging

            settlements.   Id. at  393.   But  it does  so in  aggregate,
                           ___

            saying  in the  end that  "[w]e find  it quite  impossible to

            assess  the  effect of  our  holding,  either way,  upon  the

            frequency or systemic value of settlement."  In this case, by

            contrast,  the negative  impact on  settlement is  absolutely

            clear.      We   think   this  case   presents   "exceptional

            circumstances" to which the Court referred in Bancorp.  
                                                          _______

                      We accordingly vacate the district court's decision

            and remand with directions to dismiss this suit as moot.   We

            also deny, as  moot, the  INS's pending motion  for leave  to

            file  a supplemental  brief.   Each party  will bear  its own

            costs.

                      So ordered.  
                      __________

                                         -6-
                                          6