537 U.S. 12 (2002), 02-29, Immigration and Naturalization Serv. v. Orlando Ventura

Docket Nº:No. 02-29.
Citation:537 U.S. 12, 123 S.Ct. 353, 154 L.Ed.2d 272, 71 U.S.L.W. 3308
Party Name:IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE v. FREDY ORLANDO VENTURA
Case Date:November 04, 2002
Court:United States Supreme Court
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 12

537 U.S. 12 (2002)

123 S.Ct. 353, 154 L.Ed.2d 272, 71 U.S.L.W. 3308

IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE

v.

FREDY ORLANDO VENTURA

No. 02-29.

United States Supreme Court

November 4, 2002

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Syllabus

The Attorney General is authorized to grant asylum to an alien who dem­onstrates persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of a "political opinion, " and is required to-withhold deportation where the alien's "life or freedom would be threatened" for that reason. 8 U.S.C. §§ 110l(a)(42), 1158(a), 1253(h)(l). The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) ruled that respondent did not qualify for such, protection based on the persecution he faced when he left Guatemala in 1993. The Ninth Circuit reversed and then went on to address the Government's alternative argument that respondent did not qualify for protection re­gardless of past persecution because conditions in Guatemala had im­proved to the point where no realistic persecution threat existed. Be­cause the BIA had not considered this argument, both sides asked the court to remand the case to the BIA. The court, however, evaluated the Government's claim itself, holding that the evidence failed to show a sufficient change.

Held:

Well-established administrative-law principles required the Ninth Circuit to remand the "changed circumstances" question to the BIA. Where, as here, the law entrusts the agency to make the basic decision in question, a judicial judgment cannot be substituted for an administra­tive one, SEC v. Chenery Corp., 318 U.S. 80, 88, and an appellate court's proper course is to remand to the agency for additional investigation or explanation, Florida Power & Light Co. v. Lorion, 470 U.S. 729, 744. The BIA has not yet considered the "changed circumstances" issue, and every consideration classically supporting the law's ordinary remand re­quirement does so here: The agency can bring its expertise to bear upon the matter; can evaluate the evidence; can make an initial determination; and, in doing so, can, through informed discussion and analysis, help a court later determine whether its decision exceeds the leeway that the law provides. Here, the Ninth Circuit seriously disregarded the agency's legally mandated role. It independently created a potentially far-reaching legal precedent about the significance of political change in Guatemala, a highly complex and sensitive matter, without giving the BIA the opportunity to address the matter in the first instance in light of its expertise. The court's reliance on a 1997 State Department

Page 13

report about Guatemala is legally inadequate because the report was am­biguous about changed circumstances, and because remand could lead to the presentation of further evidence of current circumstances, which may well prove enlightening given that five years have elapsed since " the report was written.

Certiorari granted; 264 F.3d 1150, reversed and remanded.

PER CURIAM.

Federal statutes authorize the Attorney General, in his discretion, to grant asylum to an alien who demonstratespersecution or a well-founded fear of persecution . . . on account of . . . [a] political opinion, and they require the Attorney General to withhold deportation where the alienslife or freedom would be threatened for that reason. Immigration and Nationality Act, §§ 101(a)(42)(A), 208(a), 243(h), 66 Stat. 166, as amended, 8 U.S.C...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP