Immigration & Naturalization Service v. Stanisic
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.
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
- 1.Opinion 107936
- 2.Opinion 9424036
- 3.Opinion 9424037
Questions, answered
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents). Try:
- “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?”