Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Stevic
467 U.S. 407 (1984)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An alien seeking withholding of deportation under § 243(h) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended by the Refugee Act of 1980, must establish a 'clear probability of persecution.' This standard requires showing that it is more likely than not that the alien's life or freedom would be threatened upon return to their country.
Facts:
- Predrag Stevic, a Yugoslavian citizen, entered the United States in 1976 on a six-week visitor's visa and overstayed.
- In early 1977, he married a United States citizen, but she died shortly thereafter in an automobile accident, which automatically revoked his approved visa petition.
- Following his marriage, Stevic became active in an anti-Communist organization based in the United States.
- Stevic's father-in-law had been imprisoned in Yugoslavia for his membership in the same anti-Communist organization.
- Stevic feared he would be imprisoned upon his return to Yugoslavia due to his political activities.
- The Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) ordered Stevic to surrender for deportation to Yugoslavia.
Procedural Posture:
- The Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) instituted deportation proceedings against Predrag Stevic.
- Stevic first moved to reopen the proceedings in 1977 to seek withholding of deportation under § 243(h).
- An Immigration Judge denied the motion without an evidentiary hearing, and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), an administrative appellate body, affirmed.
- After the Refugee Act of 1980 amended § 243(h), Stevic filed a second motion to reopen in 1981.
- The BIA denied the second motion, applying the same 'clear probability of persecution' standard.
- Stevic, the respondent, appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, an intermediate federal appellate court.
- The Court of Appeals reversed the BIA's decision, holding that the 1980 Act had replaced the 'clear probability' standard with the more generous 'well-founded fear' standard.
- The INS, the 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 Refugee Act of 1980, by amending § 243(h) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, change the standard of proof an alien must satisfy for withholding of deportation from a 'clear probability of persecution' to a 'well-founded fear of persecution'?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Stevens
No. The Refugee Act of 1980 did not change the standard of proof for withholding of deportation under § 243(h); the longstanding 'clear probability of persecution' standard remains applicable. The legislative history demonstrates that Congress's amendment to § 243(h) was a conforming change intended to align the statutory language with the UN Protocol, not to substantively alter the burden of proof which courts had consistently interpreted as requiring a showing that persecution is more likely than not. The 'well-founded fear' standard, introduced into the Act's new definition of 'refugee' in § 101(a)(42)(A), governs eligibility for discretionary grants of asylum under § 208, not the mandatory withholding of deportation under § 243(h). The court found no textual or historical basis to support the premise that qualifying as a refugee automatically entitles an alien to withholding of deportation, as these are distinct forms of relief with different standards.
Analysis:
This decision established a significant distinction between the standards of proof for two key forms of humanitarian relief in U.S. immigration law. By preserving the higher 'clear probability' (more likely than not) standard for mandatory withholding of deportation under § 243(h), the Court created a two-tiered system. It left open the question of the meaning of the 'well-founded fear' standard for discretionary asylum claims, setting the stage for the subsequent landmark case, INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, which would clarify that standard. The Stevic ruling thus narrowed the path for the non-discretionary relief of withholding, emphasizing its higher evidentiary burden compared to what might be required for asylum.
Unlock the full brief for Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Stevic