Court Opinion

ID: 9480595
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 07:52:20.930616+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:47:46.829299
License: Public Domain

CARDAMONE, Circuit Judge,
dissenting:
In my view § 5 of the Immigration Marriage Fraud Amendments of 1986 (Immigration Fraud Amendments or the Amendments), 8 U.S.C. §§ 1154(h), 1255(e) (1988), contravenes the due process requirements of the Fifth Amendment. Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Fiallo v. Bell, 430 U.S. 787, 97 S.Ct. 1473, 52 L.Ed.2d 50 (1977), the majority believes that § 5 is entitled to the substantial deference that the Supreme Court has prescribed for Congress’ classification of aliens for immigration purposes. While Fiallo provides for deference regarding classification of aliens, § 5 does not establish a new substantive “classification.” Instead, it sets up a procedure for detecting and deterring attempts by those who would enter into a fraudulent marriage in order to obtain the classification of “spouse” of an American citizen. As a procedural provision, § 5 must therefore satisfy procedural due process standards, which it fails to do. Fiallo provides no exception from the traditional requirements of due process for procedural provisions within immigration statutes. Consequently, I must respectfully dissent from the majority’s view. My reasons follow.
DISCUSSION
A. Immigration Fraud Amendments. The Immigration and Nationality Act (Act) allows United States citizens to petition the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) to have an alien classified as an “immediate relative[].” 8 U.S.C. §§ 1151(b), 1154(a)(1) (1988). Section 1151(b) defines “immediate relatives” as “children, spouses, and parents of a citizen of the United States,” and states that immediate rela*1137tives may be admitted without regard to the Act’s admission quotas.
The Act also establishes procedures by which an alien must demonstrate that he or she qualifies as an immediate relative. A section entitled “Procedure for granting immigrant status” requires a citizen who claims to have a qualifying relationship with an alien to file a petition with the Attorney General containing whatever information and documentary evidence the Attorney General needs to determine whether the alien meets the requirements for immediate relative status. See § 1154(a)(1). The Attorney General then investigates the facts set forth in each petition to determine whether they are true and sufficient to establish immediate relative status. Id. at § 1154(b). If the Attorney General determines that the alien is an immediate relative as defined in § 1151(b), the petition is approved and the Secretary of State must grant immediate relative status. Id.
In an attempt to prevent and detect fraudulent marriages — those in which an alien has married a citizen solely for the purpose of obtaining immediate relative status — Congress passed the Immigration Fraud Amendments. Section 2 of the Amendments states that an alien spouse of a United States citizen will not immediately receive full permanent resident status if the marriage was entered into within 24 months prior to applying for an immigrant visa, but instead will be granted permanent resident status on a conditional basis for a two-year period. § 1186a(a), (g)(1). During this two-year conditional period, the INS may revoke permanent resident status and deport the alien spouse if it determines that the marriage was entered into fraudulently. See § 1186a(b). To remove the conditional status the alien spouse and the citizen spouse must submit jointly a petition within 90 days prior to the second anniversary of the grant of conditional permanent residency. See § 1186a(c), (d)(2). The couple must then appear for a personal interview before an INS agent to establish that their marriage is bona fide. Id.
Section 5 of the Amendments establishes a different procedure for marriages entered into when “administrative or judicial proceedings are pending regarding the alien’s right to enter or remain in the United States,” § 1255(e)(2). In that case the Attorney General may not approve the visa petition until the alien spouse has resided outside of this country for a two-year period beginning after the date of the marriage. § 1154(h). After the alien spouse has resided two years abroad, the citizen spouse may then petition for permanent resident status, and — since they will necessarily have been married for at least two years — the alien will not be subject to the conditional residency period of § 2. See § 1186a(g)(1). Thus, if the petition is found valid, the alien spouse will immediately be entitled to full permanent resident status. Section 5 does not provide for a hearing or afford a couple an opportunity to demonstrate that they have a bona fide marriage prior to expulsion or exclusion.
The district court ruled that § 5 “creates the irrebuttable presumption that an alien who marries during deportation or exclusion proceedings has entered into a fraudu lent marriage.” Azizi v. Thornburgh, 719 F.Supp. 86, 88 (D.Conn.1989). I disagree. No such presumption exists. Rather, the statute permits an alien who marries during deportation proceedings to petition for permanent resident status after completing the two-year exile. Thus, § 5 may be viewed as serving two functional objectives: detecting and deterring marriage fraud that is, detecting marriage fraud by waiting to see which marriages or petitions survive the two-year delay, and deterring it by postponing the application for residency.
B. Procedural Due Process. The Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized that in reviewing Congress’ control over immigration a distinction is drawn between (1) legislation that defines substantive categories of aliens subject to different immigration restrictions, and (2) legislation that establishes procedures for enforcing the different treatment prescribed for the different categories of aliens. Congress’ choices regarding categories of aliens and its determination regarding which groups *1138of aliens are entitled to enter or stay in the United States are subject only to the most narrow judicial review; but once those choices have been made the procedures enacted to enforce Congress’ will are judicially scrutinized under the traditional standards of procedural due process. See Landon v. Plasencia, 459 U.S. 21, 32, 34-35, 103 S.Ct. 321, 329, 330-31, 74 L.Ed.2d 21 (1982) (“once an alien gains admission to our country and begins to develop ties that go with permanent residence ... [he] is entitled to a fair hearing when threatened with deportation”); Francis v. INS, 532 F.2d 268, 273 (2d Cir.1976). In Yamataya v. Fisher (The Japanese Immigrant Case), 189 U.S. 86, 23 S.Ct. 611, 47 L.Ed. 721 (1903), the Supreme Court held that an alien who has entered the country and established residency here, even if illegally, is entitled to an “opportunity to be heard upon the questions involving his right to be and remain in the United States.” Id. at 101, 23 S.Ct. at 615. In that case, the Court read into a statute — allowing the Secretary of the Treasury to deport an alien upon belief that the alien was illegally in the country — a requirement that the alien be allowed an opportunity to be heard upon the questions involving his right to remain. Id. See also Fiallo, 430 U.S. at 794, 97 S.Ct. at 1479 (distinguishing judicial review of procedures used to enforce immigration restrictions from review of classification of aliens).
Thus, in determining what standard of review to employ in judging the constitutionality of § 5 it must first be determined whether that section is a substantive classification — establishing a distinct class of aliens subject to particular immigration treatment — or a procedural provision prescribing a particular means to establish membership in a particular substantive class. In light of the purpose and function of the section, as well as other indicia such as its title, § 5 must be considered procedural.
C. Substance versus Procedure. According to Fiallo, Congress may select practically any criteria to create different classes of aliens so long as its choice is rationally related to a legitimate government interest. 430 U.S. at 796, 97 S.Ct. at 1480. The majority here characterizes § 5 as a substantive provision creating two distinct classes of aliens: those who marry a citizen during deportation or exclusion proceedings and those who marry a citizen before or after such proceedings. The substantive classifications underlying § 5 are more appropriately defined as aliens who enter into bona fide marriages with American citizens and those whose marriages are fraudulent. My respected colleagues apparently conclude that § 5 creates a new substantive classification because it imposes different treatment for aliens whose circumstances or characteristics fall within that section. Inherent in the majority’s view is the notion that Congress creates a new category of aliens anytime it commands different treatment for some aliens based upon a characteristic which then, according to my colleagues, defines the new class.
The problem with this approach is that it could transform every procedural mechanism into a substantive classification. This would be accomplished simply by terming as “sub-categories” the procedures designed by Congress to enforce distinctions between different categories of aliens. In other words, by characterizing a provision that establishes a method for determining which marriages are bona fide as if it creates a new substantive class, the majority allows a right (i.e. the right to have “immediate relatives” enter or remain in this country) to be defined by the procedures that Congress mandated must be followed before a person may be deprived of this right.
The Supreme Court declined to take the path down such a slippery slope in Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532, 105 S.Ct. 1487, 84 L.Ed.2d 494 (1985), where it held that statutory entitlements could not be defined by the procedures created for their deprivation. Id. at 541, 105 S.Ct. at 1493. See also Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254, 262, 90 S.Ct. 1011, 1017, 25 L.Ed.2d 287 (1970) (Congress cannot skirt due process requirements by arguing that the interest deprived is a “privi*1139lege” and not a “right”); Francis, 532 F.2d at 273 (“We do not dispute the power of the Congress to create different standards of admission and deportation for different groups of aliens. However, once those choices are made, individuals within a particular group may not be subjected to disparate treatment on criteria wholly unrelated to any legitimate governmental interest.”).
The operation of the statute demonstrates that Congress’ choice as to who may ultimately enter or stay in the United States as a permanent resident does not create classifications that may be distinguished, as the majority does, on the basis of the timing of an alien’s marriage, for even those married during deportation proceedings are entitled to full permanent resident status after the two-year exile period. Instead, Congress determined that bona fide spouses of United States citizens are entitled to permanent resident status and fraudulent spouses are not. See § 1186a(b). Common sense argues that this is what motivated Congress to enact that section of the Amendments. The distinctions based upon the timing of a marriage are bereft of meaning unless viewed as a method of promoting compliance with the underlying policy choice that only legitimate alien spouses are entitled to immediate relative status. Congress surely did not enact § 5 to express its disapproval of legitimate marriages entered into during deportation proceedings. The logical conclusion is that § 5 is aimed at enforcing different treatment for two actual classes of aliens — those who are legitimate spouses of citizens and those who are fraudulent spouses.
There are other indicia of § 5’s procedural nature. The provision requiring an alien spouse to remain two years outside of the country is contained in a section entitled “Procedure for granting immigrant status.” 8 U.S.C. § 1154 (emphasis supplied). The legislative history of the Immigration Fraud Amendments speaks exclusively of the enactors’ aim to deter immigration related marriage fraud. H.R.Rep. No. 99-906, 99th Cong., 2d Sess. 6, reprinted in 1986 Code Cong. & Admin.News 5978. Senator Paul Simon — the chief sponsor of the Amendments in the Senate — has indicated that the harsh consequences of § 5 were unforseen and unintended. 134 Cong. Rec. S1625 (daily ed. Feb. 29, 1988) (statement of Sen. Simon). Perhaps most significant, § 5 allows an alien who has married during deportation proceedings to attain full permanent resident status after two years. This plainly suggests that those who marry during deportation proceedings are not ultimately less deserving of preferential immigration status as an immediate relative, but are merely more suspect as possible frauds. Section 5 was designed to weed out through detection and deterrence those fraudulent marriages from legitimate ones.
Further, the distinction between § 5 and the provision challenged in Fiallo highlights § 5’s procedural nature. Fiallo upheld a provision of the Act that defined children for the purpose of immediate relative status. The definition included all possible parent-child relationships, including a biological mother and her illegitimate child, but excluded the relationship between a biological father and his illegitimate child. Though challenged as a violation of the Equal Protection Clause for discriminating on the basis of both gender and legitimacy, the Supreme Court held that Congress’ sovereignty is nearly complete in the area of defining the classes of immigrants who would be allowed into the country. The challenged section in Fiallo is clearly substantive because it defines the group of “immediate relatives” who may enter the country outside of the quota restrictions. Quite to the contrary, § 5 does not define the class of immediate relatives; it merely sets up a procedure to deter or detect those who would attempt fraudulently to include themselves in that class.
D. Due Process Review. Viewing § 5 as a procedural provision, as I believe we must, it is subject to the traditional scrutiny courts give to ensure that procedures employed to enforce substantive legislative policies meet the minimum standards of due process. See Fiallo, 430 U.S. at 794, 97 S.Ct. at 1479; Plasencia, 459 U.S. at *114034-35, 103 S.Ct. at 330-31; see also Rafeedie v. INS, 880 F.2d 506, 519-20 (D.C.Cir.1989) (“[T]he Due Process Clause ‘is a restraint on the legislative as well as on the executive and judicial powers of the government, and cannot be so construed as to leave congress free to make any process “due process of law,” by its mere will.’ ”) (quoting Murray’s Lessee v. Hoboken Land and Improvement Co., 18 How. 272, 276, 15 L.Ed. 372 (1855)).
Three factors are weighed to determine whether § 5 satisfies the Due Process Clause: 1) the private interest affected, 2) the risk of an erroneous deprivation of this interest through the procedures established in the statute and the probable value of additional or substitute procedures, and 3) the government’s interest, including the burdens that additional or substitute procedures would create. Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 332-35, 96 S.Ct. 893, 901-03, 47 L.Ed.2d 18 (1976); Plasencia, 459 U.S. at 34, 103 S.Ct. at 330.
1. The Private Interest Affected. An alien — even one who initially may have entered the country illegally — has a strong interest in remaining “in this land of freedom.” Plasencia, 459 U.S. at 34, 103 S.Ct. at 330; see also Mathews v. Diaz, 426 U.S. 67, 77, 96 S.Ct. 1883, 1890, 48 L.Ed.2d 478 (1976); Rosenberg v. Fleuti, 374 U.S. 449, 460, 83 S.Ct. 1804, 1811, 10 L.Ed.2d 1000 (1963); Yamataya, 189 U.S. at 100-02, 23 S.Ct. at 614-15. Further, the rights protected by our Constitution include the right to marry and to have a marriage free from undue governmental interference. See Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399, 43 S.Ct. 625, 626, 67 L.Ed. 1042 (1923); Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 485-86, 85 S.Ct. 1678, 1682-83, 14 L.Ed.2d 510 (1965); see also id. at 495, 85 S.Ct. at 1687. (Goldberg, J., concurring). “The right to live with and not be separated from one’s immediate family is ‘a right that ranks high among the interests of the individual’ and that cannot be taken away without procedural due process.” Escobar v. INS, No. 89-5037, slip op. at 10-11 (D.C.Cir. Feb. 2, 1990) (quoting Plasencia, 459 U.S. at 34-35, 103 S.Ct. at 330-31), withdrawn pending reh’g en banc (April 25, 1990). In addition, a citizen spouse is statutorily entitled to petition the INS to obtain immediate relative status for an alien spouse. 8 U.S.C. § 1154(a)(1); see Escobar, slip op. at 9; cf. Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. at 262 n. 8, 90 S.Ct. at 1017 n. 8.
The private interests at stake are great. This is true not only for the alien seeking immediate relative status, but also for the citizen seeking permission for a spouse to remain in this country. The dilemma presented by this law to a citizen, who must choose between a two-year separation from her newlywed husband or a two-year exile from her country, family, friends, home and job, is extremely harsh. See, e.g., Escobar, slip op. at 9. Thus, the private interests affected by the proposed government action must weigh heavily in the due process analysis.
2. The Risk of Erroneous Deprivation and the Value of Substitute Procedures. Statistics issued by the INS and testimony before Congress indicate that approximately 70 percent of the marriages that occur during deportation proceedings are above suspicion; only about 30 percent of such marriages are suspected of being fraudulent. H.R.Rep. No. 99-906, 99th Cong., 2d Sess. 6, reprinted in 1986 U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News at 5978. Even assuming that all marriages suspected of being fraudulent are so in fact, the risk of erroneous deprivation is still overwhelming. To put it another way, 70 percent of the couples that have bona fide marriages subject to § 5’s two-year banishment are deprived of the right to remain together in this country.
As for the probable value of additional or substitute procedures, employing them obviously would reduce the risk of such deprivations. As § 5 now stands, there are, for all practical purposes, no procedures established prior to the deprivation. Moreover, the procedures that permit a couple to petition for permanent resident status after the two-year period do not alleviate the deprivation. See Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545, 552, 85 S.Ct. 1187, 1191, 14 L.Ed.2d 62 (1965) (due process requires opportunity to be heard “at a meaningful time”). Were the INS to allow a couple to *1141present evidence of the legitimacy of their marriage prior to the deprivation, it may logically be seen that most of those aliens who would otherwise be exiled could demonstrate that their marriage is above suspicion. In other words, the risk of erroneous deprivation as to 70 percent of those who marry during deportation proceedings would be alleviated by granting them a hearing at which they could demonstrate the validity of their marriage. Hence, the risk of erroneous deprivation under § 5 is great, and substitute procedures would also be of significant value.
3. The Government’s Interest. The government’s interest in the procedure established by § 5 is, as noted, the detection and deterrence of fraudulent marriages perpetrated to obtain preferential immigration status. Concededly, this interest is substantial. Immigration marriage fraud is certainly not a “victimless crime.” Those who engage in it unfairly cut in front of those aliens lawfully waiting in line to emigrate here. This kind of marriage fraud undermines the sovereign power of the United States to control who may be allowed resident status. Yet, upon closer analysis of the procedure employed by § 5 to deter and detect marriage fraud, it is obvious that it will have limited effectiveness.
To begin with, there is little reliable evidence showing that aliens facing deportation proceedings are more likely to enter into sham marriages than aliens not facing such proceedings. The INS’s marriage fraud survey — upon which Congress relied in finding that 30 percent of the marriages entered into during deportation proceedings might be fraudulent — has been attacked as unreliable by two former general counsel to the INS. Further, because of loopholes in the statute § 5 itself does not contain a substantial disincentive to those who would attempt to enter into a fraudulent marriage to evade immigration restrictions. A couple intent on committing marriage fraud, for example, can easily circumvent § 5. If deportation proceedings have been initiated, an alien need only leave the country voluntarily to terminate them, and after the alien departs § 5 is no longer applicable. The couple could then either marry outside of the United States, or the alien could return and marry before deportation proceedings are initiated again. In both instances, the couple would not be subject to § 5 — since they would have married at a time when no deportation proceedings were pending — and the citizen would be entitled to petition for immediate relative status and conditional permanent residency for her spouse under § 2. In the alternative the couple could apply for a fiance visa while the alien was still abroad after voluntary departure. 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(K).
Thus, § 5 does not effectively distinguish between fraudulent and legitimate marriages, but only between couples who are able to travel outside the United States to circumvent the law and couples who, for financial, health or other reasons, cannot. This sort of distinction obviously does not serve the government’s interest in deterring sham marriages. In fact, we ruled that a similar distinction failed to meet the minimum standard of the rational basis test. See Francis v. INS, 532 F.2d 268. In Francis, employing the same rational relationship standard the majority uses here, we struck down an immigration statute that gave greater rights to aliens who briefly left the country and then returned than to aliens who never departed. We held that the Equal Protection Clause required that resident aliens “who are in like circumstances, but for irrelevant and fortuitous factors, be treated in a like manner.” Id. at 273.
Further, § 5 actually acts to undercut the government’s ability to distinguish between fraudulent and legitimate marriages. The two-year separation it imposes certainly places a greater emotional and psychological strain on legitimately married couples than on fraudulent ones whose emotional bonds are non-existent. It is the legitimate couple that bears a greater risk of having their marriage fail as a result of separation at this early and crucial stage. The fraudulent couple can continue their sham more easily than they could have without § 5, for they now have a perfect *1142excuse for leading separate lives and failing to establish the normal indicia of married life. When an alien engaged in marriage fraud applies for a permanent resident visa after this two-year period abroad, it will be very difficult for the government to determine whether the marriage is fraudulent since the couple justifiably will have not lived together for two years. In addition, since the couple will have been married for at least two years, the government will now have only one interview at which it can investigate the couple rather than the two investigations it conducts under § 2, and there will be no period of conditional permanent residency. See § 1186a(g)(l).
Moreover, the burdens on the government of having substitute procedures would be minimal. All that would be required to provide sufficient due process to couples married during deportation proceedings is a hearing prior to imposition of the two-year exile. Since the government already conducts such hearings at the end of the two-year period — and under § 2 in cases where a couple is married less than two years but when no deportation proceedings are pending — the administrative burden of providing a hearing to couples prior to imposition of a two-year exile is slight.
In weighing the due process factors discussed, it becomes clear that the process provided by § 5 does not meet the constitutional standard. The private interests affected by § 5 and the risk of erroneous deprivation are great while the efficacy of the statute in serving the government’s interest in distinguishing between legitimate and fraudulent marriages is doubtful at best. Consequently, in my view, since the provisions of § 5 of the Immigration Fraud Amendments fail to meet due process standards, the section should be struck down as unconstitutional.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, I dissent and vote to reverse the grant of summary judgment m favor of the Attorney General of the United States.