Ernest Francis v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
532 F.2d 268 (1976)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Denying a permanent resident alien eligibility for discretionary relief from deportation solely because they have not departed the United States since their conviction, while granting such eligibility to aliens who have temporarily departed, is an irrational distinction that violates the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause.
Facts:
- Ernest Francis, a citizen of Jamaica, was admitted to the United States as a lawful permanent resident on September 8, 1961.
- Francis established a life in the Bronx, New York, with his U.S. citizen wife and daughter; his three brothers, one sister, and his late father were also U.S. citizens.
- On October 20, 1971, Francis was convicted of criminal possession of marijuana after pleading guilty in a New York state court.
- He was sentenced to a term of probation on December 14, 1971.
- Since his 1961 admission to the U.S., and specifically since his 1971 conviction, Francis has never departed from the country.
Procedural Posture:
- The Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) initiated deportation proceedings against Ernest Francis based on his marijuana conviction.
- At a hearing, an Immigration Judge found Francis deportable and ruled that he was not eligible for discretionary relief under Section 212(c) of the INA.
- Francis appealed the Immigration Judge's decision to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA).
- The BIA, as the highest administrative body for interpreting immigration laws, dismissed Francis's appeal, affirming that he was ineligible for discretionary relief.
- Francis then filed a petition for review of the BIA's final deportation order with the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
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 Board of Immigration Appeals' interpretation of Section 212(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which denies a long-term permanent resident alien eligibility for discretionary relief from deportation because he has not departed the country since his conviction, violate the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Lumbard, Circuit Judge
Yes. The Board of Immigration Appeals' interpretation violates the equal protection of the laws. The statutory distinction between a deportable permanent resident alien who briefly leaves the country and one who does not is not rationally related to any legitimate governmental interest. The court applied the minimal scrutiny test, which requires that classifications be reasonable and have a fair and substantial relation to the legislative object. The purpose of Section 212(c) is to provide flexibility for worthy aliens with strong family ties to remain in the U.S. It is fundamentally unfair and irrational to grant this relief to an alien who takes a brief trip abroad but deny it to an alien whose ties to the U.S. are so strong that they have never departed. The fact of a temporary departure is a fortuitous and irrelevant factor for determining eligibility for discretionary relief.
Analysis:
This decision significantly expanded the availability of discretionary relief under INA § 212(c) by applying constitutional equal protection principles to immigration law. It established the precedent that even where Congress has broad power to regulate immigration, distinctions between classes of aliens must still have a rational basis. By invalidating the requirement of a physical departure, the court made § 212(c) relief accessible to a new class of long-term permanent residents in deportation proceedings who, but for the 'fortuitous' circumstance of not having traveled, were identically situated to those already eligible. This ruling transformed § 212(c) from a narrow waiver for returning residents into a broader defense against deportation for those with deep roots in the U.S.
