Immigration and Naturalization Service V. Aguirre-Aguirre - Facts

Facts

In 1994, the Immigration and Naturalization Service began deportation proceedings against Aguirre. He conceded that he was deportable, but sought asylum and withholding of deportation. At a hearing before an immigration judge, Aguirre testified that he had been politically active in his native Guatemala with the Sindicato Estudiante (Student Union) and with a group the National Central Union political party. With these groups, Aguirre protested bus fares and the Guatemalan government's failure to investigate the murders and disappearances of other students. These protests included burning buses, breaking windows, and attacking police cars. Aguirre estimated he had set fire to around ten buses. When the passengers on these buses refused to leave, the passengers were stoned, beaten with sticks, or tied up. Aguirre testified that he left Guatemala because of threats he received on account of his having participated in these sometimes violent political protests.

The immigration judge granted Aguirre's applications for asylum and withholding of deportation. The INS appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals, which reversed the immigration judge and ordered Aguirre deported. Even if Aguirre had established the requisite level of persecution, see INS v. Stevic, 467 U.S. 407 (1984), the BIA concluded that Aguirre had committed a "serious nonpolitical crime" and was not eligible for withholding of deportation under the Immigration and Nationality Act. Under BIA precedent, the political aspect of the offense must outweigh its common-law character. Because the activity Aguirre had participated in on behalf of the Estudeante Syndicado disproportionately affected civilians, the criminal aspect of his activities outweighed their political aspect. Aguirre asked the Ninth Circuit to review the BIA's decision.

From the Ninth Circuit's standpoint, the BIA's decision was deficient in three respects. First, the BIA should have balanced the persecution Aguirre might have suffered if he should return to Guatemala against the offenses he had committed there. Second, it should have considered whether the offenses were grossly disproportionate to their objective. Third, it "should have considered the political necessity and success of Aguirre's methods." Because the BIA did not consider these things, the Ninth Circuit found that the BIA's legal analysis was wanting and remanded the case. The INS asked the Supreme Court to review the decision.