McNary v. Haitian Refugee Ctr., Inc. - 498 U.S. 479, 111 S. Ct. 888 (1991)

Rule:

Significantly, the reference to "a determination" describes a single act rather than a group of decisions or a practice or procedure employed in making decisions. Moreover, when 8 U.S.C.S. § 1160(e)(3) further clarifies that the only judicial review permitted is in the context of a deportation proceeding, it refers to "judicial review of such a denial" again referring to a single act, and again making clear that the earlier reference to "a determination respecting an application" describes the denial of an individual application. This language describes the process of direct review of individual denials of special agricultural worker status, rather than as referring to general collateral challenges to unconstitutional practices and policies used by the agency in processing applications. 

Facts:

The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (Reform Act) amended the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) creating, inter alia, a "Special Agricultural Workers" (SAW) amnesty program for specified alien farmworkers. The Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) determined SAW status eligibility based on evidence presented at a personal interview with each applicant. Section 210(e)(1) of the INA barred judicial review "of a determination respecting an application" except in the context of judicial review of a deportation order, a review conducted by the courts of appeals. Respondents, the Haitian Refugee Center and unsuccessful individual SAW applicants, filed a class action in the District Court, alleging that the initial application review process was conducted in an arbitrary manner in violation of the Reform Act and the applicants' due process rights under the Fifth Amendment. While recognizing that individual aliens could not obtain judicial review of denials of their SAW status applications except in deportation proceedings in the courts of appeals, the District Court accepted jurisdiction because the complaint did not challenge any individual determination of any application for SAW status, but rather contained allegations about the manner in which the entire program was being implemented. The court found that a number of INS practices violated the Reform Act and were unconstitutional, and the Court of Appeals affirmed.

Issue:

Was the district court precluded by 8 USCS 1160(e) from exercising jurisdiction over action alleging due process violations by INS in administration of amnesty program for alien farmworkers?

Answer:

No

Conclusion:

The United States Supreme Court held that the absence of clear congressional language mandating preclusion of federal jurisdiction and the nature of respondents' requested relief provided the district court with jurisdiction to hear respondents' constitutional and statutory challenges to INS procedures.