STONE v. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE
514 U.S. 386 (1995)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The filing of a timely motion to reconsider a final deportation order from the Board of Immigration Appeals does not toll (pause) the 90-day statutory period for seeking judicial review of that order under § 106(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
Facts:
- Marvin Stone, a citizen of Canada, entered the United States in 1977 as a nonimmigrant visitor for business.
- Stone remained in the United States beyond the period authorized by his visa without seeking an extension.
- On January 3, 1983, Stone was convicted of conspiracy and mail fraud in violation of federal law.
- He served 18 months of a 3-year prison sentence for these crimes.
- In March 1987, after his release from prison, the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) initiated deportation proceedings against him.
Procedural Posture:
- An Immigration Judge ordered Marvin Stone deported in January 1988.
- Stone appealed the Immigration Judge's decision to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), an administrative appellate body.
- The BIA affirmed the deportation order and dismissed Stone's appeal on July 26, 1991, rendering the order final.
- In August 1991, Stone filed a motion with the BIA to reconsider its decision.
- The BIA denied Stone's motion for reconsideration on February 3, 1993.
- Stone filed a petition for review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, seeking review of both the BIA's July 1991 deportation order and its February 1993 denial of reconsideration.
- The Court of Appeals dismissed the portion of the petition seeking review of the 1991 deportation order, holding it lacked jurisdiction because the petition was untimely filed more than 90 days after the order.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve a conflict among the Circuit Courts on the tolling issue.
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 filing of a timely motion to reconsider a final deportation order from the Board of Immigration Appeals toll the 90-day statutory period for seeking judicial review of that order?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Kennedy
No. The filing of a motion to reconsider a final deportation order from the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) does not toll the 90-day statutory period for seeking judicial review. The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), as amended in 1990, contains a specific provision, § 106(a)(6), which requires that any petition for review of a motion to reconsider be consolidated with the petition for review of the underlying deportation order. This consolidation provision presupposes the existence of two separate, concurrently pending petitions for review, which could only occur if the filing of a reconsideration motion does not render the original order nonfinal and thus does not toll the time to appeal it. This interpretation aligns with Congress's intent to expedite judicial review of deportation orders and prevent aliens from using procedural tactics to delay their departure.
Dissenting - Justice Breyer
Yes. The 90-day statutory period for seeking judicial review should be tolled by the filing of a motion to reconsider. The general rule for administrative agency review, established in ICC v. Locomotive Engineers, is that such motions toll the period for judicial review. The INA expressly incorporates the Hobbs Act, the statute interpreted in that case, and its language does not suggest an exception for tolling. The majority's reliance on the consolidation provision is misplaced, as situations could arise where consolidation would be necessary even with a tolling rule, such as when an alien files for review and then subsequently files a motion to reopen with the agency. The majority's 'no-tolling' rule creates an unnecessary procedural trap for practitioners and is inconsistent with established administrative law principles.
Analysis:
This decision carves out a specific exception for immigration cases from the general administrative law principle that a timely motion for reconsideration tolls the time for appeal. By establishing a 'no-tolling' rule, the Court reinforced Congress's intent to streamline and expedite deportation proceedings, limiting opportunities for what it perceived as dilatory legal tactics. The ruling creates a dual-track system, requiring aliens to pursue judicial review of a final deportation order and agency-level reconsideration simultaneously if they wish to preserve all their rights. This places a significant procedural burden on aliens and their counsel, who must file a petition for review within 90 days of a BIA order, regardless of any pending motions before the agency.
Unlock the full brief for STONE v. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE