Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Abudu
485 U.S. 94 (1988)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A federal court of appeals must review the Board of Immigration Appeals' (BIA) denial of a motion to reopen deportation proceedings under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard when the denial is based on the alien's failure to introduce new material evidence or provide a reasonable explanation for not seeking relief earlier.
Facts:
- Dr. Abudu, a citizen of Ghana, entered the United States as a student in 1965 and later became a licensed physician.
- After overstaying his student visa, Abudu married an American citizen.
- In 1981, Abudu pleaded guilty to charges of attempting to obtain narcotics by fraud.
- During his subsequent deportation proceedings, Abudu was given an opportunity to apply for asylum but expressly declined to do so.
- The government of Ghana changed in a 1981 coup, and the new regime allegedly began persecuting its political enemies, including Abudu's brother and close friends.
- In 1984, after his deportation order was final on appeal, a high-ranking official from the new Ghanaian government paid Abudu an unsolicited visit in the U.S.
- Abudu feared the official's visit was a pretext to lure him back to Ghana to force him to disclose the whereabouts of government opponents.
Procedural Posture:
- The Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) initiated deportation proceedings against Dr. Abudu.
- An Immigration Judge ordered Abudu deported on July 1, 1982.
- The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), an intermediate administrative appellate body, dismissed Abudu's appeal of the deportation order on August 14, 1984.
- Abudu (petitioner) filed a petition for review of the BIA's decision in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
- While that petition was pending, Abudu filed a motion with the BIA to reopen his case to apply for asylum.
- The BIA denied the motion to reopen, finding Abudu failed to reasonably explain his delay and failed to establish a prima facie case for asylum.
- Abudu (petitioner) petitioned the Ninth Circuit to review the BIA's denial of his motion to reopen.
- The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the BIA's denial, holding that the BIA should have treated the motion like a motion for summary judgment and drawn all inferences in Abudu's favor.
- The INS (petitioner) was granted a writ of certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court.
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 a court of appeals review the Board of Immigration Appeals' (BIA) denial of a motion to reopen deportation proceedings under an abuse-of-discretion standard when the denial is based on the alien's failure to reasonably explain why they did not seek asylum during the initial proceedings?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Stevens
Yes. A court of appeals must review the Board of Immigration Appeals' (BIA) denial of a motion to reopen deportation proceedings under an abuse-of-discretion standard. The BIA has broad discretion in considering such motions. The court rejected the Ninth Circuit's analogy to a motion for summary judgment, where inferences are drawn in favor of the non-moving party. Instead, the Court compared a motion to reopen to a disfavored motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence, where the moving party bears a heavy burden. The Court emphasized the strong public interest in the finality of litigation, noting that granting motions to reopen too freely would permit endless delays of deportation. Furthermore, the Court reasoned that because immigration decisions involve sensitive political and foreign relations functions, deference to the agency's decisions is particularly warranted. Applying this standard, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in finding that Abudu failed to reasonably explain his delay in seeking asylum, as the new evidence of a single visit was not so significant as to excuse his earlier failure to apply when he already knew of his family's political problems.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies a highly deferential standard of judicial review for administrative agency decisions on motions to reopen, particularly in the immigration context. By rejecting the more petitioner-friendly summary judgment standard, the Court made it significantly more difficult for aliens to challenge the BIA's refusal to reconsider a final deportation order. The ruling empowers the BIA to manage its docket and prevent delays by enforcing strict requirements for reopening cases. This precedent reinforces the principle of finality in administrative law and underscores the heavy burden on a party seeking to reopen a closed proceeding based on new evidence or a change in circumstances.
Unlock the full brief for Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Abudu