Immigration & Naturalization Service v. Jong Ha Wang

Background

Respondents are a married Korean couple who entered the United States in January 1970 as treaty traders, stayed past their authorized date, and were found deportable after a 1974 hearing. They failed to leave when given voluntary departure, applied for adjustment of status and were denied, and then filed a second motion to reopen in December 1977 seeking suspension of deportation under the law’s extreme hardship provision after meeting the seven-year presence requirement. They said their two American-born children would lose educational opportunities because they do not speak Korean and alleged economic harm from liquidating assets, but their motion included no affidavits or other supporting evidence. The Board of Immigration Appeals denied the motion without a hearing for failure to show a prima facie case.

Reasoning

The Court addressed whether a motion to reopen must allege and support with affidavits or evidence the specific facts that would show extreme hardship. The Court held the Ninth Circuit was wrong to order a hearing because the motion was largely conclusory and unsupported, and because regulations require evidentiary support. The opinion stressed that Congress gave the Attorney General and immigration officials the primary authority to define and apply the extreme hardship standard and that reviewing courts should not substitute their judgment for the agency’s reasonable interpretation. The Board had reasonably concluded that mere economic detriment was insufficient, especially given the family’s substantial assets and possible employment prospects in Korea.

Real world impact

After this decision, people seeking to reopen deportation proceedings for hardship must present concrete, supported facts—typically affidavits or other evidence—to make a prima facie case. Immigration officials retain discretion to deny reopening when those showings are absent, and courts should defer to the agency’s reasonable hardship determinations.