Ins V, Chadha Brief

462 U.S. 919, 103 S.Ct. 2764, 77 L.Ed 2d 317 (1983)

Plaintiff/appellee/petitioner: Immigration and Naturalization Service

Defendant/appellant/respondent: Chadha

Chadha was a West Indian who was born in Kenya and held a British

passport. He was lawfully admitted into the United States in 1966 on a

non-immigrant student visa and the visa expired on June 30, 1972. On October 11, 1973, Chadha was ordered by the District Director of the Immigration and Naturalization Service to show cause as to why he should not be deported for staying in the United States longer than he was permitted. On January 11, 1974, a deportation hearing was held before an immigration judge, where Chadha agreed that he was deportable for overstaying his visa. The hearing was adjourned to enable Chadha to file an application for suspension of deportation. Section 244(a)(1) of the Immigration and Naturalization Act states that the Attorney General, at his discretion, may suspend deportation and adjust the status to that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence. Section 244(a)(1) also states that the alien must prove that he or she was physically present in the United Sta

tes for a continuous period no less than seven years immediately preceding the date of the application. The alien must also prove that during the period in question, he or she was a good person of moral character and deportation would result in an extreme hardship to the alien, his or her spouse, parent, or child, who is a citizen of the United States, or an alien lawfully admitted for permanence residence. The deportation hearing was resumed on February 7, 1974, and on June 25, 1974, the immigration judge ordered that Chadha’s deportation be suspended. Section 244(c)(1) of the Immigration and Naturalization Act states that once the Attorney General makes its recommendation, a complete and detailed statement of facts was to be reported to Congress with reasons for the suspension. Section 244(c)(2) allows either the Senate or the House of Representatives the power to veto the Attorney General’s recommendation. On December 12, 1975, Representative Eilberg, Chairman of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, and International Law, introduced a resolution opposing the granting of permanent residence in the United States to six aliens, including Chadha. On December 16, 1975, the resolution was submitted to the House of Representatives for a vote. The resolution was passed without debate or recorded vote. The resolution also was not submitted to the Senate or presented to the President. The immigration judge reopened the deportation proceedings to implement the House vote to deport Chadha. Chadha moved to terminate the proceedings on the grounds that Section 244(c)(2) was unconstitutional. The immigration judge held that he had no authority to rule on the constitutional validity on 244(c)(2). On November 8, 1976, Chadha was ordered deported pursuant to the House action.

Yes, the one house legislative veto provision in the Immigration and Naturalization Act was unconstitutional as a violation of separation of powers since it did not provide for bicameral support or presentation to the President.

The legislative veto was a central means by which Congress could secure the accountability of executive and independent agencies. Legislative veto was known in every field of governmental concern, such as reorganization, budgets, foreign affairs, war powers, and regulation of

Some topics in this essay:
House Representatives, Act Attorney, Naturalization Act, Congress Congress, President Congress, Presentment Clause, Naturalization Service, Fourteenth Amendment, Dissenting Opinion, Congress President, immigration naturalization, naturalization act, immigration naturalization act, legislative veto, house representatives, legislative powers, separation powers, immigration naturalization service, immigration judge, due process, act unconstitutional, naturalization service, naturalization act unconstitutional, article 1 section, section 2 clause,