Court Opinion

ID: 9478040
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 06:38:19.4757+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:46:12.098391
License: Public Domain

MIKVA, Circuit Judge,
dissenting:
Appellant Randall would, I am convinced, have obtained the status adjustment she seeks but for a government official’s unconstitutional action. The record indicates that the district director ruled that she was statutorily eligible for a status adjustment, but decided that he would not grant it because he disapproved of her writings and associations. The majority holds that Randall’s claim is not ripe and that she must pursue her claim at a later time in other courts. But it minimizes the crucial importance of the citizenship right at stake. As the Supreme Court has noted, “[a] person threatened with deportation cannot be denied the right to challenge the constitutional validity of the process which led to his status merely on the basis of speculation over the availability of other forms of relief.” INS v. Ckadha, 462 U.S. 919, 937, 103 S.Ct. 2764, 2777, 77 L.Ed.2d 317 (1983). I think appellant’s claim is ripe now. Moreover, I am not at all convinced that the appeals route outlined by the majority will enable Randall ever to get full relief for her injury. For these reasons, I respectfully dissent from today’s decision.
I.
The unconstitutional action at issue in this case was the district director’s decision to use his discretion to deny Randall’s status adjustment because of his dislike for her writings and associations. That the district director based his denial of discretion on these factors is set forth clearly in his decision. He stated that Randall’s “writings go far beyond mere dissent, disagreement with, or criticism of the United States or its policies.” Appendix at 34. He concluded that those writings, “as well as her affiliation with and participation in Communist Party activities, warrant the denial of her application for adjustment of status as a matter of discretion.” Id.
Allowing a discretionary decision of whether to grant a status adjustment to turn on a government official’s subjective and unguided reaction to an individual’s writings violates the requirement that delegations in the first amendment area provide “narrowly drawn, reasonable and definite standards for the [decisionmakers] to follow.” Niemotko v. Maryland, 340 U.S. 268, 271, 71 S.Ct. 328, 329, 95 L.Ed. 280 (1951); see also Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 536, 557, 85 S.Ct. 453, 465, 13 L.Ed.2d 471 (1965); L. Tribe, American Constitutional Law 1056 (2d ed. 1988) (“[T]he general rule [is] that, while legislatures ‘ordinarily may delegate power under broad standards ..., [the] area of permissible indefiniteness narrows ... when the regulation ... potentially affects fundamental rights,’ like those protected by the first amendment.”) (citing United States v. Robel, 389 U.S. 258, 274-75, 88 S.Ct. 419, 429, 19 L.Ed.2d 508 (1967) (Brennan, J., concurring)).
It strikes me as clear from the district director’s decision that, but for this unconstitutional determination, he would have granted Randall’s status adjustment. He states in the decision, before rejecting the adjustment on discretionary grounds, that “the applicant appears to be statutorily eligible _” The majority expends considerable energy in attempting to show that the district director did not really mean by this statement that Randall is statutorily eligible. I do not understand why he did not mean what he said.
First, the majority attempts to use the Bagamasbad case for the proposition that because the district director could have exercised discretion before he ruled on statutory eligibility, it is “imaginative, but implausible” to suggest that he ruled on stat*488utory eligibility first. Maj.Op. at 480. The Bagamasbad case reviewed a situation in which it was conceded by all sides that the district director did not make a determination about statutory eligibility. See Bagamasbad v. INS, 531 F.2d 111, 113 (3d Cir.), rev’d, 429 U.S. 24, 97 S.Ct. 200, 50 L.Ed.2d 190 (1976). The Supreme Court merely held that the district director was not required to make a determination of statutory eligibility. In the case at bar, the district director did make a determination that Randall was statutorily eligible before exercising his discretion. The fact that he was not required to do so does not negate this fact.
Second, the majority asserts that “the most likely reading of the director’s full statement is that he intended the words ‘the applicant’ to refer to applicants in general, not applicant Randall in particular.” Maj.Op. at 480. The full text of the district director’s decision, however, refutes such a reading. The reference to “the applicant” at issue here is sandwiched between uses of those same words that indisputably refer to Randall. A longer quotation will illustrate:
By her own admission, the applicant has made speeches for the Communist Party. Her books advocate the doctrines of communism and support the Communist governments of Cuba, Vietnam and Nicaragua from 1966 to 1981. There are constant references to the United States as “the enemy” in her books. A close associate, with whom she lived for approximately eight years, refers to “... the Amerika that Margaret has now dedicated her life to destroying”. The extent of the applicant’s support and sympathy for the Communist governments of Cuba, Vietnam and Nicaragua, and her activities while residing in these countries, can only be determined from her own statements and those of her close friends and associates.
Benefits under section 245 of the Act, supra, are discretionary. There are numerous decisions relating to the discretionary authority of the Attorney General in the adjudication of applications for adjustment of status. [Cases omitted].
All of these decisions, with others, point out that even though the applicant appears to be statutorily eligible for the benefits under Section 245 of the Act, the grant of an application is a matter of discretion and administrative grace. Furthermore, the applicant has the burden to show that discretion should be exercised in her behalf. [Case omitted]. The record of the applicant is self-evident. She has failed to show that she is clearly and beyond a reasonable doubt entitled to the benefits for which she has applied. Her activities and writings for nearly the past 20 years speak for themselves.
Appendix at 486-87 (emphasis added). It is clear that the phrase “the applicant” applies to Randall. Yet the majority maintains that the phrase has a generic quality. This reading is not credible if the opinion is read without the active second-guessing in which the majority engages.
Finally, the majority contends that even if the statement did refer to Randall, it is not a “conclusive pronouncement” because of the use of the words “appears to be” in the statement “appears to be statutorily eligible for the benefits under Section 245 of the Act.” But the phrase “appears to be” is a standard English way of expressing what one believes to be true. Cf. Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 103 (1981) (to “be obvious or evident” as a definition of “appear”). This is a particularly common usage among government decisionmakers: when a bureaucrat pronounces that “your papers appear to be in order,” he is indeed making a “conclusive pronouncement.” Moreover, even if the use of the phrase “appears to be statutorily eligible” is not an ideal way to say that Randall is statutorily eligible, it is clearly a far worse way of stating that the district director is withholding a determination about whether Randall is eligible, as the majority would have it.
When these ultimately unconvincing arguments are cast aside, we are left with the district director’s own words: “the applicant appears to be statutorily eligible.... ” Absent any compelling reason to *489believe that he did not mean what he wrote, I think that we can only conclude that he found Randall to be statutorily eligible for a status adjustment. That being the case, Randall was denied her status adjustments due entirely to the unconstitutional action of the district director.
II.
The majority states with considerable candor that if the district director had found Randall statutorily eligible, “the rest of her argument would have more force.” Maj.Op. at 479. With that much of the majority opinion I do agree. Randall has suffered real injury as a result of the district director’s actions. The administrative appeals that are pending have no prospect of giving her full relief. I am skeptical that the court of appeals that would ultimately hear the claim will be able to do so either, and in any case do not believe that Randall should have to follow that route to vindicate her rights. It is clear that Randall “has demonstrated ‘injury in fact and a likelihood that the judicial relief requested will prevent or redress the claimed injury.’ ” Chadha, 462 U.S. at 936, 103 S.Ct. at 2776 (quoting Duke Power Co. v. Carolina Envtl. Study Group, Inc., 438 U.S. 59, 79, 98 S.Ct. 2620, 2633, 57 L.Ed.2d 595 (1978)). I see no reason to refrain from resolving her claim immediately.
The majority asserts that Randall’s case is now on something it calls “the normal appeal route.” But the administrative appeal that Randall is now pursuing is entirely separate from and has no bearing on the district director’s decision. See 8 C.F.R. § 245.2(a)(5)(h) (1987) (“No [administrative] appeal lies from the denial of an application [for an adjustment of status] by the district director.”). To the contrary, the Supreme Court has held that appeals from a decision of a district director “ordinarily lie first in an action brought in an appropriate district court.” Cheng Fan Kwok v. INS, 392 U.S. 206, 210, 88 S.Ct. 1970, 1973, 20 L.Ed.2d 1037 (1968); see also Jaa v. INS, 779 F.2d 569, 571 (9th Cir.1986) (district court has jurisdiction “to review a denial of status adjustment”). Such an appeal was properly taken in the instant case, and Randall had every reason to expect that we would review the decision of the district court. As the court below correctly noted, the mere fact that deportation proceedings have been commenced is not reason for us to decline to review an erroneous ruling of the district court. Randall v. Meese, No. 85-3415, slip op. at 9 (D.D.C. June 5, 1987) (“The Court cannot adopt defendants’ myopic viewpoint concerning a district court’s jurisdiction to review abuses by a district director; whether the request [for status adjustment] is considered anew in the deportation proceedings should not ipso facto shield the district director’s actions.”). The mere fact that the district director’s unconstitutional decision was one that put appellant’s claim on a new administrative track with appellate procedures of its own should not deprive her of the opportunity to challenge it directly.
Randall has been injured by the district director’s decision in a manner that cannot be fully remedied by the appeals path toward which the majority has directed her. An applicant for citizenship must satisfy a three-year residency requirement for naturalization. See 8 U.S.C. § 1430(a). The loss of time toward residence requirements has been recognized as a real injury. See Chadha v. INS, 634 F.2d 408, 417 n. 6 (9th Cir.1980) (“By this difference in dates when permanent resident status is granted, Cha-dha ... retains a personal interest in the disposition of this petition ... ”), aff'd, INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919, 103 S.Ct. 2764, 77 L.Ed.2d 317 (1983); see also INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421, 107 S.Ct. 1207, 1210 n. 3, 94 L.Ed.2d 434 (1987). Randall has suffered such a loss in the instant case.
It is undisputed that the administrative body before which Randall’s appeal is now pending cannot accord her full relief for this injury. If the district director had not exercised his discretion in an unconstitutional manner, he would have found Randall eligible on or about October 2, 1985. She would then have been eligible for citizenship three years from that date. To make her whole — to make her a citizen at the same time she would have been had the district director acted properly— *490Randall would require retroactive relief. The BIA, however, has held that it does not have the power to grant retroactive relief. See Matter of Talanoa, 13 I & N Dec. 161 (BIA 1969), aff'd, 427 F.2d 1143 (9th Cir.1970); Matter of Palmieri, 10 I & N Dec. 187 (BIA 1963); see also Dong Sik Kwon v. INS, 646 F.2d 909, 917 (5th Cir.1981) (“Although discretion is given to the Attorney General to admit applicants, he has no authority to act retroactively on an application.”).
The majority does not mention this fact and states simply that when this decision is eventually appealed to a court of appeals “[i]t will be open to Randall to argue” that her relief should be retroactive to that point, although it “expresses] no view on the merit of such argument.” Maj.Op. at 481. I doubt that a court of appeals reviewing the BIA’s decision could decide to grant retroactive relief. Moreover, I am skeptical that Randall’s case will even be heard by a body capable of giving full relief in time to grant her such relief. Had the district director granted Randall’s adjustment of status initially, her three-year residency period would conclude on or about October 2, 1988. She would be eligible to become a citizen at that time. Considering that the BIA has not yet ruled, and that even when it does it cannot grant retroactive relief, it is unlikely in the extreme that a court capable of granting retroactive relief will even rule on the case before the date on which Randall would have become a citizen. I strongly differ with the majority's assertion that “Randall faces ‘no irremediable adverse consequences.’ ” Maj.Op. at 481 (citation omitted).
The majority rightly points out that ripeness doctrine is “very much a matter of practical common sense.” Continental Air Lines, Inc. v. Civil Aeronautics Bd., 522 F.2d 107, 124 (D.C.Cir.1974) (en banc). I see no common-sense reason for this court to refrain from deciding Randall’s claim at this time. She has been deprived of a status adjustment for an unconstitutional reason by a decisionmaker from whom there is no administrative appeal. Appeal from that decision is properly to the district court and then to this court. Her case is now in the hands of an administrative body that, because it has held that it cannot order retroactive relief, cannot grant her full relief for her injury. In light of that inability, I find it particularly noteworthy that the majority, in rejecting Randall’s claims, nevertheless holds itself out as her champion. See Maj.Op. at 482 n. 16 (stating that the dissent is “so quick to rule against Randall on questions we leave open for her to raise in the proper court”). With friends like this, Randall certainly does not need enemies. I believe that “practical common sense” dictates that we take the appeal now and begin to remedy Randall’s injury. I would reverse the decision below and remand the case to the district director with directions that he not exercise his discretionary powers in an unconstitutional manner.