United States Hintopoulos v. Shaughnessy

• Citation: 353 U.S. 72,1 L.Ed.2d 652,77 S.Ct. 618
• Decision Date: 25 March 1957
• Docket Number: No. 205,205
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America, ex rel. Anastasios HINTOPOULOS, et ux., Petitioners, v. Edward J. SHAUGHNESSY, District Director of Immigration and NaturalizationService at the Port of New York
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

353 U.S. 72

77 S.Ct. 618

1 L.Ed.2d 652

UNITED STATES of America, ex rel. Anastasios HINTOPOULOS, et ux., Petitioners,

v Edward J. SHAUGHNESSY, District Director of Immigration and NaturalizationService at the Port of New York.

No. 205.

Argued March 4, 1957.

Decided March 25, 1957.

Mr.

Jay Nicholas Long, New York City, for petitioner.

Mr. Maurice A. Roberts, Washington, D.C., for respondent.

Mr. Justice HARLAN delivered the opinion of the Court.

This is a habeas corpus proceeding to test the validity of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals denying petitioners' request for suspension of deportation.

Petitioners are husband and wife, both aliens. Prior to 1951 both worked as seamen on foreign vessels. In July 1951 the wife lawfully entered the United States as a crew member of a ship in a United States port. Being pregnant, she sought medical advice; subsequently she decided in the interest of her health to stay ashore. A month later, on the next occasion his ship arrived in the United States, her husband joined her; he also failed to leave on the expiration of his limited lawful stay.¹ In November 1951 their child was born; the child is, of course, an American citizen by birth. In January 1952 petitioners voluntarily disclosed their illegal presence to the Immigration Service and applied for suspension of deportation under § 19(c) of the Immigration Act of 1917, which provides, in part:

'In the case of any alien * * * who is deportable under any law of the United States and who has proved good moral character for the preceding five years, the Attorney General may * * * suspend deportation of such alien if he is not ineligible for naturalization * * * if he finds (a) that such deportation would result in serious economic detriment to a citizen or legally resident alien who is the spouse, parent, or minor child of such deportable alien * * *.'²

Deportation proceedings were instituted in May 1952 and a hearing was held. On the undisputed facts both aliens were found deportable. As to the issue of suspension of deportation, the Hearing Officer, while finding petitioners eligible for such relief, denied the request, stating as follows:

'Both respondents have applied for suspension of deportation on the ground of the economic detriment that would befall their minor son in the event they were deported. * * * Both disclaim having a criminal record anywhere and both allege that they have been persons of good moral character. Evidence of record would tend to corroborate their testimony in this respect. Their only income is from the employment of the male respondent on two jobs * * *. Their joint assets consist of savings in the sum of about $500 and their furniture and other personal property which they value at $1500. While it would seem that their son * * * would suffer economically if his parents should be deported, it is not believed that as a matter of administrative discretion the respondents' applications for suspension of deportation should be granted. They have been in the United States for a period of less than one year. They have no relatives in this country other than each other and their son. To grant both this form of relief upon the accident of birth in the United States of their son would be to deprive others, who are patiently awaiting visas under their already oversubscribed quotas. It is noted also that neither respondent reported his and her presence in the United States at any time until January, 1952 when they filed applications for suspension of deportation just two months after the birth of their child. * * *'

The Board of Immigration Appeals heard petitioners' appeal, and on March 18, 1954, upheld the Hearing Officer's recommendation and denied suspension of deportation. The Board stated:

'It is obvious that the American citizen infant child is dependent upon the alien parents for economic support, care and maintenance. Documentary and other evidence establish good moral character for the requisite period. The aliens have no connection with subversive groups.

'As stated above, we have, in the instant case, a family consisting of two alien parents illegally residing in the United States and one American citizen child, age about two and one-half years. These respondents have been in the United States for a period of less than three years. Both arrived in this country as seamen. they have no other dependents or close family ties here. The record indicates that the male respondent may be able to obtain work as a Greek seaman and earn about $85 monthly.

'Notwithstanding the Fact that * * * the deportation of these respondents would result in a serious economic detriment to an American citizen infant child, the granting or withholding of maximum discretionary relief depends on the factors and merits in each individual case, and is a matter of adminis- trative discretion. We have carefully examined the facts and circumstances in the instant case and we find that the granting of the maximum relief is not warranted by the record in the case. * * *'

Petitioners thereupon moved for reconsideration. On May 5, 1954, the Board denied the motion, stating:

'Counsel's motion sets forth no matters of which we were unaware at the time our previous decision was rendered. It is crystal clear that Congress intended to greatly restrict the granting of suspension of deportation by the change of phraseology which was used in Section 244(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (of 1952) as well as the Congressional comment at the time this provision was enacted.³ We indicated in our previous order that the deportation of the respondents would result in a serious economic detriment to their citizen minor child, and we do not question that the respondents have established the statutory requirements for suspension of deportation * * *.

'Upon our further review of the cases of the two respondents, we adhere to our rpevious decision that suspension of deportation should be denied as a matter of administrative discretion * * *.'

Taken into custody for deportation, petitioners instituted the present habeas corpus proceeding, alleging that the Board abused its discretion in denying their application for suspension of deportation. The District Court dismissed the writ, 133 F.Supp. 433, and the Court of Appeals, one judge dissenting, affirmed, 2 Cir., 233 F.2d 705. We granted certiorari. 352 U.S. 819, 77 S.Ct. 53, 1 L.Ed.2d 45.

We do not think that there was error in these proceedings. It is clear from the record that the Board applied the correct legal standards in deciding whether petitioners met the statutory prerequisites for suspension of deportation. The Board found that petitioners met these standards and were eligible for relief. But the statute does not contemplate that all aliens who meet the minimum legal standards will be granted suspension. Suspension of deportation is a matter of discretion and of administrative grace, not mere eligibility; discretion must be exercised even though statutory prerequisites have been met.⁴

Nor can we say that it was abuse of discretion to withhold relief in this case. The reasons relied on by the Hearing Officer and the Board—mainly the fact that petitioners had established no roots or ties in this country—were neither capricious nor arbitrary.

Petitioners urge that the Board applied an improper standard in exercising its discretion when, in its opinion on rehearing, it took into account the congressional policy underlying the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, the latter being concededly inapplicable to this case. We cannot agree with this contention. The second opinion makes clear that the Board still considered petitioners eligible for suspension under the 1917 Act⁵ and denied relief solely as a matter of discretion....