Yassini v. Crosland

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
618 F.2d 1356 (1980)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

An agency directive that implements the President's foreign policy during an international crisis is exempt from the Administrative Procedure Act's (APA) notice-and-comment rulemaking requirements under the "foreign affairs function" and "good cause" exceptions.

Facts:

Masoud Mahdjoubi, an Iranian citizen, was admitted to the United States as a nonimmigrant student.
After he was found to be in violation of his student status, the INS initially granted him deferred voluntary departure until September 1979, due to political instability in Iran.
In August 1979, the INS extended the deferred departure date for Iranian nationals, including Mahdjoubi, to June 1, 1980.
On November 4, 1979, Iranian militants seized the United States Embassy in Tehran and took American citizens hostage.
In response, on November 10, 1979, President Carter directed the Attorney General to identify and initiate deportation proceedings against Iranian students who were not in compliance with their visas.
On November 13, 1979, Acting INS Commissioner David Crosland issued a directive rescinding the June 1980 deferred departure for all Iranian nationals who had received it.
Mahdjoubi was personally notified that his deferred departure was revoked and that he was required to depart the country within 30 days.

Procedural Posture:

Masoud Mahdjoubi, along with other Iranian nationals, sued in U.S. District Court to challenge the legality of the INS directive.
The district court certified the plaintiffs as a class and dismissed the case on the merits.
On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit vacated the class certification and dismissal, remanding the case for proceedings regarding the named plaintiffs.
Mahdjoubi's administrative motions to reopen his deportation proceedings were denied, and he was ordered to report for deportation.
Mahdjoubi filed a motion in district court for a temporary restraining order and a stay of deportation, which the court denied.
Mahdjoubi appealed the denial to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which granted a stay of deportation pending the outcome of this appeal.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Is an Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) directive revoking deferred departure dates for Iranian nationals void for failing to comply with the notice-and-comment rulemaking procedures of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA)?

Opinions:

Majority - Per Curiam

No, the INS directive is not void because it is exempt from the APA's notice-and-comment requirements. The court reasoned that the directive, while potentially a 'rule' under the APA, falls under both the 'foreign affairs function' exception (5 U.S.C. § 553(a)(1)) and the 'good cause' exception (5 U.S.C. § 553(b)(B)). The court found that Acting Commissioner Crosland was not creating his own foreign policy but was implementing the President's expressed foreign policy in response to the Iranian hostage crisis. Affidavits from the Attorney General and Deputy Secretary of State confirmed that the directive was an integral part of the President's response. Because the action was directly tied to foreign policy and the public interest required a prompt response to the crisis, compliance with notice-and-comment procedures was impracticable and contrary to the public interest. The court also rejected Mahdjoubi's due process claims, finding no violation under Hampton v. Mow Sun Wong because the agency was properly implementing a presidential directive, and no hearing was required for a change in general policy.

Analysis:

This decision reinforces the significant deference courts grant to the executive branch in matters of immigration and foreign policy. It clarifies that when an agency's action is a direct implementation of presidential foreign policy, particularly during a crisis, it can bypass standard administrative procedures like notice-and-comment rulemaking. This precedent strengthens the executive's ability to act swiftly in foreign affairs but also limits the procedural safeguards available to non-citizens affected by such actions. The case serves as a key example of how the 'foreign affairs function' and 'good cause' exceptions to the APA are interpreted broadly in the context of national security and international relations.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Yassini v. Crosland (1980)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"

Premium Feature