Lexplug logoLexplug

Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Aguirre-Aguirre

United States Supreme Court
526 U.S. 415 (1999)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) may use a permissible test to determine if an alien has committed a 'serious nonpolitical crime' that makes them ineligible for withholding of deportation. This test involves weighing the political nature of an offense against its common-law criminal character, and does not require balancing the crime against the severity of persecution the alien might face upon return.


Facts:

  • Aguirre-Aguirre, a native and citizen of Guatemala, was politically active with a student group called Estudeante Syndicado (ES) from 1989 to 1992.
  • To protest government policies, such as high bus fares and the government's failure to investigate student disappearances, Aguirre-Aguirre and ES engaged in various protest activities.
  • As part of these protests, Aguirre-Aguirre participated in setting approximately 10 buses on fire after dousing them with gasoline.
  • Before burning the buses, Aguirre-Aguirre and his group would order passengers to leave, sometimes stoning, hitting with sticks, or tying up those who refused.
  • Aguirre-Aguirre and his group also vandalized private shops by breaking windows, forcing people out, and throwing merchandise on the floor.
  • Following these activities, Aguirre-Aguirre entered the United States illegally.

Procedural Posture:

  • The Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) charged Aguirre-Aguirre with deportability for illegal entry.
  • Aguirre conceded deportability but applied for asylum and withholding of deportation before an Immigration Judge at the trial court level for immigration cases.
  • The Immigration Judge granted Aguirre's application for withholding of deportation and asylum.
  • The INS, as the losing party, appealed the Immigration Judge's decision to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), the appellate body for immigration courts.
  • The BIA sustained the INS's appeal, reversed the Immigration Judge's order, and ordered Aguirre deported, finding he had committed a serious nonpolitical crime.
  • Aguirre, as petitioner, sought review of the BIA's decision in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
  • A divided panel of the Ninth Circuit granted Aguirre's petition for review and remanded the case to the BIA for further proceedings.
  • The INS, as petitioner, then successfully petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari to review the Ninth Circuit's decision.

Locked

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 (BIA) permissibly interpret the 'serious nonpolitical crime' exception in 8 U.S.C. § 1253(h)(2)(C) by weighing the political nature of an offense against its criminal character, without also balancing the seriousness of the crime against the severity of persecution the alien might face upon deportation?


Opinions:

Majority - Justice Kennedy

Yes. The Board of Immigration Appeals' (BIA) interpretation of the 'serious nonpolitical crime' exception is a permissible construction of the statute entitled to judicial deference under Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. The Court of Appeals erred by failing to accord the required deference to the BIA. The BIA’s framework, which weighs the political aspect of an offense against its common-law criminal character and considers whether the act is grossly disproportionate to its political objective or is of an atrocious nature, is a reasonable interpretation of the statute. The statute's structure treats the risk of persecution as a threshold for eligibility, separate from the analysis of whether a disqualifying crime was committed; therefore, the BIA is not required to balance the severity of the crime against the potential persecution. The U.N. Handbook, which suggests such balancing, is a non-binding interpretive aid. Finally, the BIA was not required to find the acts 'atrocious' to deem them serious nonpolitical crimes, as gross disproportionality between the acts and their political objective is a sufficient basis for such a finding.



Analysis:

This decision significantly reinforces the application of Chevron deference to the Board of Immigration Appeals' (BIA) statutory interpretations, particularly in areas implicating foreign policy. It solidifies the BIA's legal test for the 'serious nonpolitical crime' exception, giving the agency considerable latitude to deny withholding of deportation to individuals who have committed violent acts, even if politically motivated. By explicitly rejecting a requirement to balance the crime against the risk of persecution, the ruling creates a stricter, more categorical bar to relief, making it more difficult for applicants with certain criminal histories to avoid deportation regardless of the dangers they face in their home country.

🤖 Gunnerbot:
Query Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Aguirre-Aguirre (1999) directly. You can ask questions about any aspect of the case. If it's in the case, Gunnerbot will know.
Locked
Subscribe to Lexplug to chat with the Gunnerbot about this case.

Unlock the full brief for Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Aguirre-Aguirre