Immigration & Naturalization Service v. Stevic
Headline: Deportation relief tightened: deportable immigrants must prove it is more likely than not they would be persecuted to avoid removal, as the Court reinstates the 'clear probability' standard.
Holding: The Court decided that a deportable alien seeking to avoid deportation under §243(h) must show it is more likely than not he would be persecuted, applying the 'clear probability' standard.
- Makes it harder for deportable immigrants to obtain withholding of deportation.
- Immigration judges must apply a 'more likely than not' standard for persecution claims.
- Reverses lower-court rulings that required only a 'well-founded fear' showing.
Summary
Background
A Yugoslavian man who overstayed a visitor visa sought to reopen deportation proceedings after his U.S. citizen wife died and his approved visa was revoked. He asked the government to withhold his deportation because he feared persecution if returned to Yugoslavia. The Board of Immigration Appeals denied his motions for reopening for lack of prima facie evidence that he would be singled out for persecution, applying a “clear probability of persecution” standard. The Court of Appeals reversed, applying a more generous “well-founded fear” test from a U.N. refugee definition.
Reasoning
The core question was which standard of proof Congress intended for withholding of deportation under §243(h) after the Refugee Act of 1980. The Court examined the statutory text, administrative practice, and legislative history. It concluded that Congress meant the amendment to conform language to the U.N. Protocol and to regularize refugee admission procedures, not to lower the burden of proof for withholding claims. The Court found no clear congressional intent to abandon the preexisting “clear probability” or likelihood standard and therefore held that an alien must show it is more likely than not that persecution would occur.
Real world impact
The ruling means deportable people seeking withholding under §243(h) must meet the more demanding “more likely than not” showing of persecution. The Court reversed the lower court and sent the case back for further proceedings under the correct standard. The opinion does not define the separate “well-founded fear” test that applies to discretionary asylum claims, a question left for another 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?