Immigration & Naturalization Service v. Stanisic
Headline: Immigration ruling lets district directors, not special inquiry officers, decide asylum claims by ship crewmen after a vessel departs, reversing the appeals court and ordering a new hearing under updated standards.
Holding:
Summary
Background
A Yugoslav crewman who had a temporary D-1 landing permit said he feared persecution and refused to return to his ship, the M/V Sumadija. A District Director revoked the permit, heard the crewman’s claim, and denied relief. The Ninth Circuit later held the crewman was entitled to a hearing before a special inquiry officer because the ship had since sailed. The Government asked the Supreme Court to resolve the conflict between courts.
Reasoning
The main question was who must hear a crewman’s claim that deportation would cause persecution. The Court said that deportability and asylum (or parole) claims are governed separately and that the agency regulation (former 8 CFR §253.1(e), later §253.1(f)) authorizes a district director to decide such crewman parole/asylum requests. The Court also held that a properly started §252(b) crewman proceeding does not automatically end when the vessel departs. Because the District Director had applied an older, narrower
Opinions in this case:
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?