Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Doherty
502 U.S. 314 (1992)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Attorney General has broad discretion to deny an alien's motion to reopen deportation proceedings and does not abuse that discretion by denying reopening where the alien previously withdrew their claims as a tactical decision, or where the evidence presented as new was foreseeable at the time of the original hearing.
Facts:
- Joseph Patrick Doherty, a member of the Provisional Irish Republican Army (PIRA) and a citizen of both Ireland and the United Kingdom, participated in an ambush in May 1980 that resulted in the death of a British Army Captain in Northern Ireland.
- While being tried for murder, Doherty escaped from a maximum-security prison.
- The court in Northern Ireland found Doherty guilty of murder in absentia and sentenced him to life imprisonment.
- In 1982, Doherty entered the United States illegally using an alias.
- The Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) located Doherty in 1983 and began deportation proceedings.
- During the proceedings, Doherty conceded he was deportable and designated Ireland as his chosen country for deportation.
- In conjunction with designating Ireland, Doherty voluntarily and explicitly withdrew his pending applications for asylum and withholding of deportation.
Procedural Posture:
- The INS initiated deportation proceedings against Joseph Patrick Doherty in 1983 in an immigration court.
- The proceedings were stayed pending extradition proceedings brought by the United Kingdom in U.S. District Court.
- The U.S. District Court, acting as an Extradition Magistrate, denied extradition, finding Doherty's crimes fell under the political offenses exception to the treaty.
- Deportation proceedings resumed, where an Immigration Judge ordered Doherty deported to his designated country of Ireland, over the INS's objection.
- The INS appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), which affirmed the Immigration Judge's order.
- The INS then appealed the BIA's decision to the U.S. Attorney General.
- While the appeal was pending, Attorney General Meese reversed the BIA, rejected Doherty's designation of Ireland, ordered him deported to the United Kingdom, and remanded Doherty's motion to reopen to the BIA.
- The BIA granted Doherty's motion to reopen.
- The INS appealed the BIA's grant of reopening to the next Attorney General, Thornburgh, who reversed the BIA and denied the motion to reopen.
- Doherty appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which reversed the Attorney General's denial of the motion to reopen.
- 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 the Attorney General abuse their discretion by refusing to reopen deportation proceedings to allow consideration of claims for asylum and withholding of deportation that the alien had previously withdrawn as a tactical decision?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Justice Rehnquist
No. The Attorney General does not abuse their broad discretion by denying an alien's motion to reopen deportation proceedings under these circumstances. The Attorney General may deny a motion to reopen on at least three grounds, including the failure to introduce previously unavailable, material evidence. Here, the Attorney General permissibly concluded that neither the denial of Doherty's country designation nor the change in Irish extradition law was new evidence, as the risk of the designation being denied was foreseeable from the statute and the INS's stated opposition at the hearing. An adverse administrative decision resulting from a foreseeable risk cannot constitute 'new' evidence. Furthermore, the Attorney General reasonably found that Doherty waived his claims by withdrawing them for a tactical advantage—to expedite his deportation to Ireland. Withdrawing a claim for a tactical advantage is not a reasonable explanation for failing to pursue it earlier, and the Attorney General is well within his discretion to deny reopening on that basis.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Justice Scalia
No, as to the asylum claim; Yes, as to the withholding of deportation claim. The Attorney General’s discretion differs significantly between discretionary relief like asylum and mandatory relief like withholding of deportation. The AG could properly deny reopening the asylum claim because asylum is discretionary, and the AG could decide Doherty is an 'unsavory character' unworthy of it. However, withholding of deportation is mandatory if the alien qualifies. Doherty did not waive his withholding claim; he withdrew it on the implicit condition that his designation of Ireland would be accepted. When the Attorney General rejected that designation, the condition failed, and the waiver became void. The rejection of his designated country was a new, material development that made his withholding claim relevant. Denying him the opportunity to present this mandatory claim, especially after the government's own procedural defaults were forgiven, was an abuse of discretion.
Analysis:
This decision significantly reinforces the broad discretionary authority of the Attorney General in immigration matters, particularly in denying motions to reopen proceedings. It establishes that an alien's tactical decisions, such as voluntarily withdrawing a claim, can be construed as a waiver, preventing them from reviving the claim if their strategy fails. The ruling emphasizes finality in administrative proceedings by narrowing what constitutes 'new and material evidence,' excluding foreseeable outcomes of the litigation process. For future cases, this precedent makes it more difficult for aliens to get a 'second bite at the apple' after making a strategic choice in their deportation hearings.
Unlock the full brief for Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Doherty