Post-Conviction Relief for Immigrants

Justice Douglas, speaking for a unanimous court in reversing a decision of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in another deportation case, said:

We resolve the doubts in favor of that construction because deportation is a drastic measure and at times the equivalent of banishment or exile, Delgadillo v. Carmichael, 332 U.S. 388, 68 S.Ct. 10 (92 L.Ed. 17).  It is the forfeiture for misconduct of a residence in this country.  Such a forfeiture is a penalty.  To construe this statutory provision less generously to the alien might find support in logic.  But since the stakes are considerable for the individual, we will not assume that Congress meant to trench on his freedom beyond that which is required by the narrowest of several possible meanings of the words used.[9]

            Reiterating this principle, Chief Justice Warren has written,  “Although not penal in character, deportation statutes as a practical matter may inflict ‘the equivalent of banishment or exile,’ . . . and should be strictly construed.”[10]  The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit expressed awareness of this principle in Garcia‑Gonzales, saying, “We are aware, too, that matters of doubt should be resolved in favor of the alien in deportation proceedings, because of the severity of the remedy invoked.”[11]

[9] Fong Haw Tan v. Phelan, 333 U.S. 6, 10, 68 S.Ct. 374, 376, 92 L.Ed. 433 (1948).

[10] Barder v. Gonzales, 347 U.S. 637, 642, 74 S.Ct. 822, 825, 98 L.Ed. 1009 (1954).

[11] Garcia‑Gonzales v. INS, 344 F.2d 804 (9th Cir. 1965).