Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Aguirre-Aguirre
Encyclopedia
Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Aguirre-Aguirre, 526 U.S. 415
(1999), examined a doctrinal question last presented to the U.S. Supreme Court
in Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Cardoza-Fonseca
, . In Aguirre-Aguirre, the Court determined that federal courts had to defer to the Board of Immigration Appeals's
interpretation of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
began deportation proceedings against Aguirre. He conceded that he was deportable, but sought asylum
and withholding of deportation
. At a hearing before an immigration judge, Aguirre testified that he had been politically active in his native Guatemala
with the Sindicato Estudiante (Student Union
) and with a group the National Central Union political party
. With these groups, Aguirre protested bus fares and the Guatemalan government's failure to investigate the murders and disappearances
of other students. These protests included burning buses, breaking windows, and attacking police cars. Aguirre estimated he had set fire to around ten buses. When the passengers on these buses refused to leave, the passengers were stoned, beaten with sticks, or tied up. Aguirre testified that he left Guatemala because of threats he received on account of his having participated in these sometimes violent political protests.
The immigration judge granted Aguirre's applications for asylum and withholding of deportation. The INS appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals
, which reversed the immigration judge and ordered Aguirre deported. Even if Aguirre had established the requisite level of persecution, see INS v. Stevic, , the BIA concluded that Aguirre had committed a "serious nonpolitical crime" and was not eligible for withholding of deportation under the Immigration and Nationality Act. Under BIA precedent, the political aspect of the offense must outweigh its common-law character. Because the activity Aguirre had participated in on behalf of the Estudeante Syndicado disproportionately affected civilians, the criminal aspect of his activities outweighed their political aspect. Aguirre asked the Ninth Circuit
to review the BIA's decision.
From the Ninth Circuit's standpoint, the BIA's decision was deficient in three respects. First, the BIA should have balanced the persecution Aguirre might have suffered if he should return to Guatemala against the offenses he had committed there. Second, it should have considered whether the offenses were grossly disproportionate to their objective. Third, it "should have considered the political necessity and success of Aguirre's methods." Because the BIA did not consider these things, the Ninth Circuit found that the BIA's legal analysis was wanting and remanded the case. The INS asked the Supreme Court to review the decision.
The Ninth Circuit did not disagree that the "serious political offense" exception to mandatory withholding was the proper framework under which to analyze the case. But the Ninth Circuit missed a step when it proceeded to analyze the BIA's legal conclusion. The Ninth Circuit had "confronted questions implicating" the BIA's "construction of the statute which it administers," and this meant that it should have asked whether "the statute is silent or ambiguous with respect to the specific issue" before it. If so, then the Ninth Circuit should have asked whether the BIA's construction of the statute was a permissible one. The Court clarified that this threshold inquiry, called Chevron deference
, applies to questions of the BIA's interpretations of parts of the Immigration and Nationality Act, including the "serious political offense" exception.
The BIA had already determined that the alien's criminal acts were not to be judged against the risk that he will be persecuted if he returned to his home country. This conclusion was consistent with the text of the statute, as it "is not obvious that an already-completed crime is somehow rendered less serious by considering the future circumstance that the alien may be subject to persecution if returned to his home country." In essence, the BIA concluded that Aguirre was not eligible for withholding of deportation even assuming he could establish a threat of persecution. Because this conclusion was consistent with the statute, the Ninth Circuit overstepped its bounds by disturbing it.
The Ninth Circuit had said that the "political nature of the offenses would be more difficult to accept if they involved acts of an atrocious nature," such as indiscriminate massacre of civilians. But the BIA did not dispute that this, in the abstract, "may be important in applying the serious nonpolitical crime exception." The BIA simply was not persuaded in this case to discount the nonpolitical nature of Aguirre's actions. An act need not be atrocious to be nonpolitical, and the statute recognizes this. The Ninth Circuit was wrong to force this kind of equivalence on the BIA.
Case citation
Case citation is the system used in many countries to identify the decisions in past court cases, either in special series of books called reporters or law reports, or in a 'neutral' form which will identify a decision wherever it was reported...
(1999), examined a doctrinal question last presented to the U.S. Supreme Court
Supreme Court of the United States
The Supreme Court of the United States is the highest court in the United States. It has ultimate appellate jurisdiction over all state and federal courts, and original jurisdiction over a small range of cases...
in Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Cardoza-Fonseca
Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Cardoza-Fonseca
Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Cardoza-Fonseca, , decided that the standard for withholding of removal set in INS v. Stevic, , was too high a standard for applicants for asylum to satisfy...
, . In Aguirre-Aguirre, the Court determined that federal courts had to defer to the Board of Immigration Appeals's
Board of Immigration Appeals
The Board of Immigration Appeals is the part of the Executive Office for Immigration Review that reviews the decisions of the Immigration Courts and some decisions of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. It is an administrative appellate body that is part of the United States Department...
interpretation of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
Facts
In 1994, the Immigration and Naturalization ServiceImmigration and Naturalization Service
The United States Immigration and Naturalization Service , now referred to as Legacy INS, ceased to exist under that name on March 1, 2003, when most of its functions were transferred from the Department of Justice to three new components within the newly created Department of Homeland Security, as...
began deportation proceedings against Aguirre. He conceded that he was deportable, but sought asylum
Asylum in the United States
The United States honors the right of asylum of individuals as specified by international and federal law. A specified number of legally defined refugees, who apply for asylum either overseas or after arriving in the U.S., are admitted annually. Refugees compose about one-tenth of the total...
and withholding of deportation
Deportation
Deportation means the expulsion of a person or group of people from a place or country. Today it often refers to the expulsion of foreign nationals whereas the expulsion of nationals is called banishment, exile, or penal transportation...
. At a hearing before an immigration judge, Aguirre testified that he had been politically active in his native Guatemala
Guatemala
Guatemala is a country in Central America bordered by Mexico to the north and west, the Pacific Ocean to the southwest, Belize to the northeast, the Caribbean to the east, and Honduras and El Salvador to the southeast...
with the Sindicato Estudiante (Student Union
Student union
Student union may refer to:* Students' union, or student government in the U.S., a student organization at many colleges and universities dedicated to student governance...
) and with a group the National Central Union political party
Political party
A political party is a political organization that typically seeks to influence government policy, usually by nominating their own candidates and trying to seat them in political office. Parties participate in electoral campaigns, educational outreach or protest actions...
. With these groups, Aguirre protested bus fares and the Guatemalan government's failure to investigate the murders and disappearances
Forced disappearance
In international human rights law, a forced disappearance occurs when a person is secretly abducted or imprisoned by a state or political organization or by a third party with the authorization, support, or acquiescence of a state or political organization, followed by a refusal to acknowledge the...
of other students. These protests included burning buses, breaking windows, and attacking police cars. Aguirre estimated he had set fire to around ten buses. When the passengers on these buses refused to leave, the passengers were stoned, beaten with sticks, or tied up. Aguirre testified that he left Guatemala because of threats he received on account of his having participated in these sometimes violent political protests.
The immigration judge granted Aguirre's applications for asylum and withholding of deportation. The INS appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals
Board of Immigration Appeals
The Board of Immigration Appeals is the part of the Executive Office for Immigration Review that reviews the decisions of the Immigration Courts and some decisions of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. It is an administrative appellate body that is part of the United States Department...
, which reversed the immigration judge and ordered Aguirre deported. Even if Aguirre had established the requisite level of persecution, see INS v. Stevic, , the BIA concluded that Aguirre had committed a "serious nonpolitical crime" and was not eligible for withholding of deportation under the Immigration and Nationality Act. Under BIA precedent, the political aspect of the offense must outweigh its common-law character. Because the activity Aguirre had participated in on behalf of the Estudeante Syndicado disproportionately affected civilians, the criminal aspect of his activities outweighed their political aspect. Aguirre asked the Ninth Circuit
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is a U.S. federal court with appellate jurisdiction over the district courts in the following districts:* District of Alaska* District of Arizona...
to review the BIA's decision.
From the Ninth Circuit's standpoint, the BIA's decision was deficient in three respects. First, the BIA should have balanced the persecution Aguirre might have suffered if he should return to Guatemala against the offenses he had committed there. Second, it should have considered whether the offenses were grossly disproportionate to their objective. Third, it "should have considered the political necessity and success of Aguirre's methods." Because the BIA did not consider these things, the Ninth Circuit found that the BIA's legal analysis was wanting and remanded the case. The INS asked the Supreme Court to review the decision.
Decision of the Court
The U.S. Attorney General must grant an applicant withholding of removal if he determines that the alien's life or freedom would be threatened in a country on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. (h)(1). Generally, withholding of deportation is required if it is more likely than not that the alien would be persecuted in his home country on account of one of the protected grounds. However, withholding does not apply if the Attorney General determines that "there are serious reasons for considering that the alien has committed a serious nonpolitical offense outside the United States prior to the arrival of the alien in the United States." (h)(2)(C).The Ninth Circuit did not disagree that the "serious political offense" exception to mandatory withholding was the proper framework under which to analyze the case. But the Ninth Circuit missed a step when it proceeded to analyze the BIA's legal conclusion. The Ninth Circuit had "confronted questions implicating" the BIA's "construction of the statute which it administers," and this meant that it should have asked whether "the statute is silent or ambiguous with respect to the specific issue" before it. If so, then the Ninth Circuit should have asked whether the BIA's construction of the statute was a permissible one. The Court clarified that this threshold inquiry, called Chevron deference
Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.
Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 , was a case in which the United States Supreme Court set forth the legal test for determining whether to grant deference to a government agency's interpretation of a statute which it administers...
, applies to questions of the BIA's interpretations of parts of the Immigration and Nationality Act, including the "serious political offense" exception.
The BIA had already determined that the alien's criminal acts were not to be judged against the risk that he will be persecuted if he returned to his home country. This conclusion was consistent with the text of the statute, as it "is not obvious that an already-completed crime is somehow rendered less serious by considering the future circumstance that the alien may be subject to persecution if returned to his home country." In essence, the BIA concluded that Aguirre was not eligible for withholding of deportation even assuming he could establish a threat of persecution. Because this conclusion was consistent with the statute, the Ninth Circuit overstepped its bounds by disturbing it.
The Ninth Circuit had said that the "political nature of the offenses would be more difficult to accept if they involved acts of an atrocious nature," such as indiscriminate massacre of civilians. But the BIA did not dispute that this, in the abstract, "may be important in applying the serious nonpolitical crime exception." The BIA simply was not persuaded in this case to discount the nonpolitical nature of Aguirre's actions. An act need not be atrocious to be nonpolitical, and the statute recognizes this. The Ninth Circuit was wrong to force this kind of equivalence on the BIA.