Agosto v. Immigration & Naturalization Service

Background

Joseph Agosto faced deportation after the Immigration Service presented Italian birth and foundling-home records saying he was born in Agrigento in 1927 and adopted there. Agosto said he was born in Ohio and presented himself and three witnesses who testified to a U.S. birth and later upbringing in Italy. Immigration judges and the Board rejected his account as not credible and the Ninth Circuit refused to transfer the nationality claim for a new trial in district court.

Reasoning

The Court asked whether Agosto had shown enough to get a de novo (new) judicial hearing under the statute that governs appeals of deportation orders. The majority read the statute’s phrase “genuine issue of material fact” the same way courts read that phrase in summary-judgment law: if the evidence, taken in the light most favorable to the claimant, would permit a trial, the appeals court must send the case to district court. The Court held the appeals court should not refuse transfer simply by judging witness credibility on the written record when live testimony, if believed, could defeat the government’s documents.

Real world impact

The decision means people who assert U.S. birth and put forward live testimony that conflicts with government documents can obtain a new trial in district court to resolve those factual questions. This ruling does not decide who is ultimately a citizen; it sends the disputed factual issue to a district judge for live factfinding and credibility assessment.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Powell (joined by Justice Rehnquist) dissented, warning the ruling rewards false claims and arguing Congress intended a tougher threshold — including a “frivolous” or substantial-evidence screen — to limit dilatory tactics.