De Avilia v. Civiletti
643 F.2d 471 (1981)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An administrative agency's interpretation of an ambiguous statute it administers is entitled to substantial deference and will be upheld if it is reasonable and consistent with the underlying legislative intent, even if a literal reading of the statute would suggest a different outcome.
Facts:
- Prior to 1977, immigration from Western Hemisphere nations like Mexico was not subject to a per-country annual limit, and Mexico typically accounted for 40,000-45,000 immigrants per year.
- The U.S. government's fiscal year runs from October 1 to September 30.
- The Immigration and Nationality Act Amendments of 1976 imposed a new 20,000 per-country annual visa quota on all nations, including those in the Western Hemisphere.
- These amendments became effective on January 1, 1977, three months into the 1977 fiscal year, which had begun on October 1, 1976.
- During the first quarter of fiscal year 1977 (October 1 to December 31, 1976), before the new law's effective date, the State Department issued 14,203 visas to Mexican nationals under the old immigration system.
- Following the law's effective date, the State Department adopted a 'cross-systems charging policy,' counting the 14,203 previously issued visas against Mexico's new 20,000 quota for fiscal year 1977.
- This policy left only 5,797 visas available for Mexican applicants for the remaining nine months of the fiscal year.
Procedural Posture:
- A group of Mexican visa applicants ('the applicants') filed a class action lawsuit against the State Department in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.
- The district court held that the State Department's policy was unlawful and that the 20,000 visa quota should have been applied pro rata to the three quarters of the fiscal year remaining after the law's effective date.
- The district court granted a permanent injunction against the State Department's policy and ordered the 'recapture' of 9,565 visas for the benefit of the plaintiff class.
- Both the United States Government, as appellant, and the visa applicants, as cross-appellants, appealed the district court's final order to the United States Court of Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the State Department's policy of counting immigrant visas issued prior to the effective date of the 1976 Immigration and Nationality Act Amendments against a country's new annual 20,000 visa quota violate the Act, when the Act's text specifies the quota applies only to visas issued under the new system?
Opinions:
Majority - Bartels, District Judge
No. The State Department's policy of counting visas issued before the effective date of the 1976 amendments against the new annual quota does not violate the Act because it was a reasonable interpretation designed to effectuate clear congressional intent. The court gives substantial deference to the interpretation of the agency charged with administering a statute, and that interpretation should be followed unless there are compelling indications it is wrong. Here, the legislative history clearly shows Congress intended to create a uniform immigration system by imposing a 20,000 per-country visa ceiling on all nations to eliminate preferential treatment. The mid-fiscal-year effective date created an ambiguity that Congress failed to address. A literal reading of the statute, as advocated by the plaintiffs, would grant Mexico far more than 20,000 visas in the fiscal year, directly contravening the statute's primary purpose. The agency's policy was not an impermissible retroactive application because visa applicants have no vested right to a visa, and the policy only affected the future availability of visas, not any that had already been issued. Therefore, the agency's reasonable effort to resolve a statutory gap in a manner consistent with legislative intent was lawful.
Analysis:
This case is a significant example of judicial deference to an administrative agency's interpretation of an ambiguous statute, a principle later solidified in Chevron v. NRDC. It establishes that courts will prioritize clear legislative intent, found in legislative history, over a hyper-literal reading of statutory text that would lead to results contrary to that intent. The decision confirms that agencies have the authority to fill 'gaps' left by legislative oversight, provided their solution is reasonable and aligns with the statute's overarching purpose. This ruling guides future cases where statutory effective dates clash with operational periods, allowing agencies to implement policies that harmonize the statute's goals despite textual inconsistencies.
Unlock the full brief for De Avilia v. Civiletti