INS v. National Center for Immigrants' Rights, Inc., 502 U.S. 183, 14 (1991)

Page:   Index   Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14



Opinion of the Court

66-68 (1974), others carry employment authorization documents, see 8 CFR 274a.12(a) (1991),10 or registration numbers that will readily identify their status.11

This informal process is enhanced by two additional provisions. First, 8 CFR 103.6(a)(2)(iii) (1991) establishes a procedure under which individual aliens can seek discretionary relief from the INS and secure temporary work authorization. Second, an alien may seek prompt administrative and judicial review of bond conditions. 8 CFR 3.18, 242.2 (1991).

Taken together all of these administrative procedures are designed to ensure that aliens detained and bonds issued under the contested regulation will receive the individualized determinations mandated by the Act in this context.

For these reasons, we conclude that 8 CFR 103.6(a)(2)(ii) (1991) is consistent with the Attorney General's statutory authority under 242(a) of the INA. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is therefore reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

It is so ordered.

10 This section sets forth the various classes of aliens authorized to accept employment; in each case the INS issues to the alien a document confirming that authorization. Importantly, the INS regulations implementing IRCA also provide for the issuance of such a document pending the resolution of amnesty proceedings. See 8 CFR 245a.2(n) (1991).

11 We realize that the regulation effectively establishes a presumption that undocumented aliens taken into custody are not entitled to work. In view of the fact that over 97 percent of those aliens apparently do not contest their deportability and instead agree to voluntary deportation, INS v. Lopez-Mendoza, 468 U. S. 1032, 1044 (1984), such a presumption is reasonable. Moreover, even within the narrow subclass in which deportability is contested, there is no evidence that the presumption cannot be effectively rebutted by those aliens who are entitled to employment, or who have a colorable claim to the right to work. The fact that the rule may make it more difficult for aliens who are not entitled to work to resist deportation is, of course, not a reason for concluding that the regulation exceeds the Attorney General's statutory authority.

Page:   Index   Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14

Last modified: October 4, 2007