43 501 Reid v. Immigration and Naturalization Service 8212 1541

• Citation: 420 U.S. 619,43 L.Ed.2d 501,95 S.Ct. 1164
• Decision Date: 18 March 1975
• Docket Number: No. 73,73
• Parties: . 43 L.Ed.2d 501 Robert REID and Nadia Alice Reid, Petitioners, v. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE. —1541
• Court: United States Supreme Court

420 U.S. 619

95 S.Ct. 1164.

43 L.Ed.2d 501

Robert REID and Nadia Alice Reid, Petitioners,

v IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE.

No. 73—1541.

Argued Jan. 20, 1975.

Decided March 18, 1975.

Syllabus

The Immigration and Naturalization Service, relying on § 241(a)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, instituted deportation proceedings against petitioners, a husband and wife who had entered this country after falsely representing themselves to be United States citizens, and thereafter had two children who were born in this country. Section 241(a), inter alia, specifies that an alien shall be deported who (1) at the time of entry was within a class of aliens excludable by the law existing at the time of such entry, or (2) entered the United States without inspection. Section 241(f) states: 'The provisions of this section relating to the deportation of aliens within the United States on the ground that they were excludable at the time of entry as aliens who have sought to procure, or have procured visas or other documentation, by entry into the United States by fraud or misrepresentation shall not apply to an alien otherwise admissible at the time of entry who is the spouse, parent, or a child of a United States citizen or of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence.' Petitioners were found deportable, and on petition for review the Court of Appeals affirmed, rejecting petitioners' contention that they were saved by § 241(f). Held: Petitioners were deportable under § 241(a)(2) of the Act, which establishes as a separate ground for deportation, quite independently of whether the alien was excludable at the time of his arrival, the failure of an alien to present himself for inspection at the time he made his entry. Aliens like petitioners who accomplish entry into this country by making a willfully false representation of United States citizenship are not only excludable under § 212(a)(19) but have also so significantly frustrated the process for inspecting incoming aliens that they are also deportable as persons who have 'entered the United States without inspection.' INS v. Errico, 385 U.S. 214, 87 S.Ct. 473, 17 L.Ed.2d 318, distinguished. Pp. 622-631.

Affirmed.

Benjamin Globman, Hartford, Conn., for petitioners.

Jewell S. LaFontant, Washington, D.C., for respondent.

Mr. Justice REHNQUIST delivered the opinion of the Court.

Petitioners Robert and Nadia Reid, husband and wife, are citizens of British Honduras. Robert Reid entered the United States at Chula Vista, California, in November 1968, falsely representing himself to be a citizen of the United States. Nadia Reid, employing the same technique, entered at the Chula Vista port of entry two months later. Petitioners have two children who were born in the United States since their entry.

In November 1971, the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) began deportation proceedings against petitioners, which were resolved adversely to them first by a special inquiry officer and then by the Board of Immigration Appeals. On petition for review, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit by a divided vote affirmed the finding of deportability. We granted certiorari to resolve the conflict between this holding and the contrary conclusion of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Lee Fook Chuey v. INS, 439 F.2d 244 (1970).¹ 419 U.S. 823, 95 S.Ct. 39, 42 L.Ed.2d 46 (1974).

Because of the complexity of congressional enactments relating to immigration, some understanding of the structure of these laws is required before evaluating the legal contentions of petitioners. The McCarran-Walter Act, enacted by Congress in 1952, 66 Stat. 163, as amended, 8 U.S.C. § 1101 et seq., although frequently amended since that date, remains the basic format of the immigration laws. 'Although the McCarran-Walter Act has been repeatedly amended, it still is the basic statute dealing with immigration and nationality. The amendments have been fitted into the structure of the parent statute and most of the original enactment remains undisturbed.' 1 C. Gordon & H. Rosenfield, Immigration Law and Procedure 1—13 to 1—14 (rev. ed. 1975).

Section 212 of the Act as amended, 8 U.S.C. § 1182, specifies various grounds for exclusion of aliens seeking admission to this country. Section 241 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1251, specifies grounds for deportation of aliens already in this country. Section 241(a) specifies 18 different bases for deportation, among which only the first two need directly concern us:

'Any alien in the United States . . . shall, upon the order of the Attorney General, be deported who—

'(1) at the time of entry was within one or more of the classes of aliens excludable by the law existing at the time of such entry;

'(2) entered the United States without inspection or at any time or place other than as designated by the Attorney General or is in the United States in violation of this chapter or in violation of any other law of the United States . . ..'

The INS seeks to deport petitioners under the provisions of § 241(a)(2), asserting that they entered the United States without inspection.² Petitioners dispute none of the factual predicates upon which the INS bases its claim, but instead argue that their case is saved by the provisions of § 241(f), which provides in pertinent part as follows:

'The provisions of this section relating to the deportation of aliens within the United States on the ground that they were excludable at the time of entry as aliens who have sought to procure, or have procured visas or other documentation, or entry into the United States by fraud or misrepresentation shall not apply to an alien otherwise admissible at the time of entry who is the spouse, parent, or a child of a United States citizen or of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence.' 75 Stat. 655, 8 U.S.C. § 1251(f). (Emphasis supplied.)

Petitioners contend that they are entitled to the benefits of § 241(f) 'by virtue of its explicit language.' This contention is plainly wrong, and for more than one reason.

The language of § 241(f) tracks the provisions of § 212(a)(19), 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(19), dealing with aliens who are excludable, and providing in pertinent part as follows:

'Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, the following classes of aliens shall be ineligible to receive visas and shall be excluded from admission into the United States:

'(19) Any alien who seeks to procure, or has sought to procure, or has procured a visa or other documentation, or seeks to enter the United States, by fraud, or by willfully misrepresenting a material fact . . ..' (Emphasis supplied.)

Thus the 'explicit language' of § 241(f), under which petitioners rely, waives deportation for aliens who are 'excludable at the time of entry' by reason of the fraud specified in § 212(a)(19), and for that reason deportable under the provisions of § 241(a)(1). If the INS were seeking to deport petitioners on this ground, they would be entitled to have applied to them the provisions of § 241(f) because of the birth of their children after entry.

But the INS in this case does not rely on § 212(a)(19), nor indeed on any of the other grounds for excludability under § 212, which are in turn made grounds for deportation by the language of § 241(a)(1). It is instead relying on the separate provision of § 241(a)(2), which does not depend in any way upon the fact that an alien was excludable at the time of his entry on one of the grounds specified in § 212(a). Section 241(a)(2) establishes as a separate ground for deportation, quite independently of whether the alien was excludable at the time of his arrival, the failure of an alien to present himself for inspection at the time he made his entry. If this ground is established by the admitted facts, nothing in the waiver provision of § 241(f), which by its terms grants relief against deportation of aliens 'on the ground that they were excludable at the time of entry,' has any bearing on the case. Cf. Costanzo v. Tillinghast, 287 U.S. 341, 343, 53 S.Ct. 152, 153, 77 L.Ed. 350 (1932).

The issue before us, then, turns upon whether petitioners, who accomplished their entry into the United States by falsely asserting that they were citizens of this country, can be held to have 'entered the United States without inspection.' Obviously not every misrepresentation on the part of an alien making an entry into the United States can be said to amount to an entry without inspection. But the courts of Appeals have held that an alien who accomplishes entry into this country by making a willfully false representation that he is a United States citizen may be charged with entry without inspection. Ex parte Saadi, 26 F.2d 458 (CA9), cert. denied, 278 U.S. 616, 49 S.Ct. 21, 73 L.Ed. 540 (1928); United States ex rel. Volpe v. Smith, 62 F.2d 808 (CA7), aff'd on other grounds, 289 U.S. 422, 424, 53 S.Ct. 665, 666, 77 L.Ed. 1298 (1933); Ben Huie v. INS, 349 F.2d 1014 (CA9 1965). We agree with these holdings, and conclude that an alien making an entry into this country who falsely represents himself to be a citizen would not only be excludable under § 212(a)(19) if he were detected at the time of his entry, but has also so significantly frustrated the process for inspecting incoming aliens that he is also deportable as one who has 'entered the United States without inspection.' In reaching this conclusion we subscribe to the reasoning of Chief Judge Aldrich, writing for the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in Goon Mee Heung v. INS, 380 F.2d 236, 237, cert. denied, 389 U.S. 975, 88 S.Ct. 479, 19 L.Ed.2d 470 (1967):

'Whatever the effect other misrepresentations may arguably have on an alien's being legally considered to have been inspected upon entering the country, we do not now consider; we are here concerned solely with an entry under a fraudulent claim of citizenship. Aliens who enter as citizens, rather than as aliens,...