Adams v. Baker (1990)

Chevron Step Two The Attorney General 22 began the interpretation of “reasonable grounds for regarding” by agreeing with the conclusion of the First Circuit Court of Appeals in Adams v. Baker, 909 F.2d 643, 649 (1st Cir.1990), that the statutory reference to “reasonable” grounds “implies the use of a reasonable person standard.” In re A-H-, 23 I. & N. Dec. at 788 .

Chevron Step Two The Attorney General22 began the interpretation of “reasonable grounds for regarding” by agreeing with the conclusion of the First Circuit Court of Appeals in Adams v. Baker, 909 F.2d 643, 649 (1st Cir. 1990), that the statutory reference to “reasonable” grounds “implies the use of a reasonable person standard.” In re A–H–, 23 I. & N. Dec. at 788.

Chevron Step Two The Attorney General21 began the interpretation of “reasonable grounds for regarding” by agreeing with the conclusion of the First Circuit Court of Appeals in Adams v. Baker, 909 F.2d 643, 649 (1st Cir. 1990), that the statutory reference to “reasonable” grounds “implies the use of a reasonable person standard.” In re A–H–, 23 I. & N. Dec. at 788.

See Chiang v. Skeirik, 582 F.3d 238, 242 (1st Cir. 2009); Adams v. Baker, 909 F.2d 643, 649 (1st Cir. 1990).

See, e.g., Draper v. United States, 358 U.S. 307 , 310 n.3 (1959) (equating “probable cause” with “reasonable grounds”); Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 , 477–78 & n.6 (1963) (same); Lozman v. Riviera Beach, 138 S. Ct. 1945, 1957 (2019) (Thomas, J., dissenting) (describing a common law principle that equates “reasonable grounds” and “probable cause” as synonymous); United States v. Banuelos-Romero, 597 F.3d 763, 768 (5th Cir. 2010) (noting that “reasonable belief” co…

See, e.g., Draper v. United States, 358 U.S. 307 , 310 n.3 (1959) (equating “probable cause” with “reasonable grounds”); Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 , 477–78 & n.6 (1963) (same); Lozman v. Riviera Beach, 138 S. Ct. 1945, 1957 (2019) (Thomas, J., dissenting) (describing a common law principle that equates “reasonable grounds” and “probable cause” as synonymous); United States v. Banuelos-Romero, 597 F.3d 763, 768 (5th Cir. 2010) (noting that “reasonable belief” co…

Acad. of Religion v. Napolitano, 573 F.3d 115, 125 (2d Cir.2009); Adams v. Baker, 909 F.2d 643, 647-48 (1st Cir.1990); Abourezk v. Reagan, 785 F.2d 1043, 1075 (D.C.Cir.1986).

Adams v. Baker, 909 F.2d 643, 649 (1st Cir.1990) ("[I]n the absence of statutory authorization or mandate from Congress, factual determinations made by consular officers in the visa issuance process are not subject to review by the Secretary of State, 8 U.S.C. § 1104 (a)(1), and are similarly not reviewable by courts."); see Saavedra Bruno v. Albright, 197 F.3d 1153, 1159-60, 1162-63 (D.C.Cir.1999) ("The doctrine [of consular nonreviewability] holds that a consular official’…

In Matter of A-H- , the Attorney General looked back to the First Circuit’s decision in Adams v. Baker, 909 F.2d 643, 649 (1st Cir.1990), in which the court held that the statutory reference to “reasonable” grounds “implies the use of a reasonable person standard.” Matter of A-H- 23 I. & N. Dec. at 788 .

In Matter of A-H-, the Attorney Gen- eral looked back to the First Circuit’s decision in Adams v. Baker, 909 F.2d 643, 649 (1st Cir. 1990), in which the court held that the statutory reference to “reasonable” grounds “im- plies the use of a reasonable person standard.” Matter of A-H-, 23 I. & N. Dec. at 788 .

In Matter of A-H-, the Attorney Gen- eral looked back to the First Circuit’s decision in Adams v. Baker, 909 F.2d 643, 649 (1st Cir. 1990), in which the court held that the statutory reference to “reasonable” grounds “im- plies the use of a reasonable person standard.” Matter of A-H- , 23 I. & N. Dec. at 788 .

In Matter of A-H- , the Attorney General looked back to the First Circuit’s decision in Adams v. Baker, 909 F.2d 643, 649 (1st Cir.1990), in which the court held that the statutory reference to “reasonable” grounds “implies the use of a reasonable person standard.” Matter of A-H-, 23 I. & N. Dec. at 788 .

Indeed, the Supreme Court has “long recognized the power to expel or exclude aliens as a fundamental sovereign attribute exercised by the Government’s political departments largely immune from judicial control.” The political character of this intrinsically executive function renders it “subject only to narrow judicial review.” Adams v. Baker, 909 F.2d 643, 647 (1st Cir.1990) (citations omitted).

In Adams v. Baker, 909 F.2d 643, 643 (1st Cir.1990), the plaintiffs made a similar claim that their First Amendment rights had been infringed by the denial of a visa to Gerry Adams, an officer of Sinn Fein (the political arm of the Irish Republican Army) whom they had invited to the United States for a speaking tour.

Mezei, 345 U.S. 206, 210 (1953) (“[T]he power to expel or exclude aliens [i]s a fundamental sovereign attribute exercised by the Government’s political departments largely immune from judicial control.”); Adams v. Baker, 909 F.2d 643, 647 (1st Cir. 1990) (“Nowhere is the scope of judicial inquiry more limited than in the area of immigration legislation.”) (citations omitted).

Mezei, 345 U.S. 206, 210 , 73 S.Ct. 625 , 97 L.Ed. 956 (1953) (“[T]he power to expel or exclude aliens [i]s a fundamental sovereign attribute exercised by the Government’s political departments largely immune from judicial control.”); Adams v. Baker, 909 F.2d 643, 647 (1st Cir.1990) (“Nowhere is the scope of judicial inquiry more limited than in the area of immigration legislation.”) (citations omitted).

“Nowhere is the scope of judicial inquiry more limited than the area of immigration legislation.” Adams v. Baker, 909 F.2d 643, 647 (1st Cir. 1990).

See Chiang v. Skeirik, 582 F.3d 238, 242 (1st Cir. 2009) (“Under the doctrine of consular nonreviewability, in immigration disputes nonconstitutional issues are generally outside the jurisdiction of the courts.”); Adams v. Baker, 909 F.2d 643, 649 (1st Cir. 1990) (“[I]n the absence of statutory authorization or mandate from Congress, factual determinations made by consular officers in the visa issuance process are . . . not reviewable by courts.”).1 Although defendants do no…

See Chiang v. Skeirik, 582 F.3d 238, 242 (1st Cir. 2009) (“Under the doctrine of consular 2 nonreviewability, in immigration disputes nonconstitutional issues are generally outside the jurisdiction of the courts.”); Adams v. Baker, 909 F.2d 643, 649 (1st Cir. 1990) (“[I]n the absence of statutory authorization or mandate from Congress, factual determinations made by consular officers in the visa issuance process are . . . not reviewable by courts.”).1 Although defendants do …

Circuits, we hold that under Mandel, a U.S. citizen raising a constitutional challenge to the denial of a visa is entitled to a limited judicial inquiry regarding the reason for the decision.”); Adams v. Baker, 909 F.2d 643, 650 (1st Cir. 1990); Udugampola v. Jacobs, 795 F. Supp. 2d 96, 103 (D.D.C. 2011) (collecting cases).

E.g., Adams v. Baker , 909 F.2d 643 , 647 (1st Cir. 1990) ("Nowhere is the scope of judicial inquiry more limited than in the area of immigration legislation"); Herrera-Inirio v. I.N.S. , 208 F.3d 299 , 308 (1st Cir. 2000) ; Bruns , 750 F.3d at 66 ; United States v. Lopez-Flores , 63 F.3d 1468 , 1475 (9th Cir. 1995) ("Federal legislation that classifies on the basis of alienage, enacted pursuant to Congress' immigration or foreign policy powers, is therefore subject to the l…

Adams v. Baker, 909 F.2d 643, 647 (1st Cir. 1990).

Acad. of Religion v. Napolitano, 573 F.3d 115, 126 (2d Cir.2009); Bustamante v. Mukasey, 531 F.3d 1059, 1062 (9th Cir.2008); Adams v. Baker, 909 F.2d 643, 647-48 (1st Cir.1990)).

Indeed, the Supreme Court has “long recognized the power to expel or exclude aliens as a fundamental sovereign attribute exercised by the Government’s political departments largely immune from judicial control.” The political character of this intrinsically executive function renders it “subject only to narrow judicial review.” Kandamar v. Gonzales, 464 F.3d 65, 72 (1st Cir.2006) (quoting Adams v. Baker, 909 F.2d 643, 647 (1st Cir.1990) (citations omitted)); see also INS v. …

We cited examples from cases such as Adams v. Baker, 909 F.2d 643, 649 (1st Cir. 1990), in which the court found that a reasonable belief may be formed if the evidence “is sufficient to justify a reasonable person in the belief that the alien falls within the proscribed category.” We also found the respondent statutorily ineligible for withholding of removal under section 241(b)(3)(B)(iv) of the Act because there are “reasonable grounds to believe” that the respondent “is a …

See Adams v. Baker, 909 F.2d 643, 647-50 (1st Cir. 1990); Allende v. Shultz, 845 F.2d 1111 (1st Cir. 1988).

See Adams v. Baker, 909 F.2d 643, 647-50 (1st Cir.1990); Allende v. Shultz, 845 F.2d 1111 (1st Cir.1988).

See, e.g., Adams v. Baker, 909 F.2d 643, 647-48 (1st Cir.1990); Burrafato v. United States Dep’t. of State, 523 F.2d 554, 556-57 (2d Cir.1975); Saavedra Bruno v. Albright, 197 F.3d 1153, 1163 (D.C.Cir.1999).

See, e.g., Adams v. Baker, 909 F.2d 643, 647-48 (1st Cir. 1990); Burrafato v. United States Dep’t. of State, 523 F.2d 554, 556-57 (2d Cir. 1975); Saavedra Bruno v. Albright, 197 F.3d 1153, 1163 (D.C.

Mason, 862 F.2d at 194 ; see also Adams v. Baker, 909 F.2d 643 (1st Cir.1990) (where facts found by consular officer in issuing visas were not subject to judicial review, facially legitimate and bona fide standard meant review for whether evidence existed to form reasonable grounds for belief); Garcia-Mir, 766 F.2d at 1485 (Cuba’s agreement to take back Mariel immigrants, formed factual basis for conclusion of increased chance of flight); Bertrand, 684 F.2d at 213-18 (extens…

See Adams v. Baker, 909 F.2d 643, 649 (1st Cir. 1990) (stating that a “‘reasonable belief’ may be formed if the evidence . . . is sufficient to justify a reasonable person in the belief that the alien falls within the proscribed category”).

See also Adams v. Baker, 909 F.2d 643 (1st Cir.1990) (because the power to exclude nonresident aliens is a “fundamental sovereign attribute,” finding that consular decision to deny nonimmigrant visa to Gerry Adams, President of Sinn Fein, on the basis of hearsay evidence derived from newspapers and reports is subject to extremely limited judicial review).