Summary
The Supreme Court held that federal Courts of Appeals have exclusive jurisdiction under § 106(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act to review discretionary determinations denying suspension of deportation when made during deportation proceedings. The Court concluded that such denials are included within the statute’s reference to “final orders of deportation,” reversing the Second Circuit. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether a denial of discretionary suspension of deportation under § 244(a)(5) of the Immigration and Nationality Act is included within the phrase “final orders of deportation” in § 106(a).
- Whether Courts of Appeals have initial and exclusive jurisdiction to review a denial of discretionary relief entered during the same administrative deportation proceeding as the deportability determination.
Holdings
- A denial of suspension of deportation made during the same administrative proceeding in which deportability is determined is included within the phrase “final orders of deportation” in § 106(a).
- The Court of Appeals has exclusive initial jurisdiction to review the denial of suspension of deportation together with the deportability determination, rather than requiring bifurcated review in a District Court.
Key quotations
“The hearings on deportability and on an application for discretionary relief have, as a matter of traditional uniform practice, been held in one proceeding before the same special inquiry officer, resulting in one final order of deportation.” (375 U.S. at 223)
“Review of the denial of discretionary relief is ancillary to the deportability issue, and both determinations should therefore be made by the same court at the same time.” (375 U.S. at 227)
“Bifurcation of judicial review of deportation proceedings is not only inconvenient; it is clearly undesirable and not the necessary result from a fair interpretation of the pertinent statutory language.” (375 U.S. at 232)
Factual background
Foti, a 47-year-old Italian citizen, entered the United States in late 1950 on a seaman's visa authorizing a stay of no more than 29 days and remained unlawfully for more than ten years. In deportation proceedings, he conceded deportability and sought suspension of deportation based on the asserted hardship to his family and Brooklyn bakery business if he were deported. The agency denied suspension for failure to satisfy the exceptional-and-extremely-unusual-hardship requirement but granted voluntary departure.
Procedural history
A special inquiry officer found Foti deportable, denied suspension of deportation under § 244(a)(5), and granted voluntary departure. The Board of Immigration Appeals dismissed Foti's appeal. The Southern District of New York dismissed his action for declaratory and injunctive relief, holding that review belonged exclusively in a Court of Appeals. The Second Circuit, sitting en banc, dismissed Foti's petition for lack of jurisdiction, holding that “final orders of deportation” did not include denial of discretionary relief. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded.
Remand instructions
The case was remanded to the Court of Appeals for further consideration consistent with the Supreme Court's holding that it had jurisdiction to review the denial of suspension of deportation.