Immigration & Naturalization Service v. Abudu
Headline: Court narrows review of motions to reopen deportation, applies an abuse-of-discretion standard, and makes it harder for deportable immigrants to win new asylum hearings based on late evidence.
Holding: The Court held that courts of appeals must review BIA denials of motions to reopen under an abuse-of-discretion standard, not under a summary-judgment–style, de novo review.
- Makes it harder for deportable immigrants to reopen cases based on late asylum claims.
- Encourages courts to defer to the immigration board’s judgments on reopening motions.
- Reinforces finality in deportation proceedings against repetitive late filings.
Summary
Background
A Ghanaian doctor who had overstayed a student visa and pleaded guilty to attempting to obtain narcotics was ordered deported and initially declined to seek asylum. While his appeal was pending, he filed a motion to reopen the deportation proceeding to request asylum, supported by affidavits describing fear of persecution and a 1984 surprise visit from a Ghanaian official.
Reasoning
The Board of Immigration Appeals denied the motion for two independent reasons: the doctor had not reasonably explained why he failed to request asylum earlier, and his new evidence did not make a strong enough showing of likely persecution. The Ninth Circuit treated the reopening motion like a request for summary judgment and required courts to view all inferences in the applicant’s favor. The Supreme Court rejected that analogy. Relying on regulations and prior cases, the Court held that denials of reopening based on untimeliness or the lack of new, material evidence must be reviewed only for abuse of discretion. The Court explained that reopening motions are disfavored to protect finality and avoid endless delay, and that the Board did not abuse its discretion in this case.
Real world impact
The decision means appeals courts should defer to the immigration board’s exercise of judgment when it rejects late asylum claims or finds no newly discovered material evidence. It makes it harder for deportable people to obtain new hearings based on belated claims and emphasizes finality in deportation proceedings.
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?