parent nodes: judicial foreign affairs deference
Gonzalez v Reno
Elian Gonzalez's uncle, Lazaro, seeks to file an asylum petition on his behalf
Elian's father, Juan Miguel, urges instead to return Elian to Cuba
8 USC § 1156 provides that "any alien . . . may apply for asylum"
The INS refuses to consider Lazaro's application for Elian, on the grounds that parents customarily have the right to speak for their children on immigration matters
Lazaro files suit to compel the INS to consider the merits of his application
Issue: Is the INS' rejection of Lazaro's asylum application on Elian's behalf entitled to deference under Chevron v NRDC?
The court, per Edmondson, J, says yes.
Chevron v NRDC applies to immigration statutes, so that the court should defer to reasonable interpretations by the INS of vague or ambiguous statutes. Section 1158 is neither vague nor ambiguous on who may apply, but it is silent as to how aliens should go about applying, and 8 USC § 1158(d) allows the INS to issue regulations on the application process. Thus, the court should defer to a reasonable interpretation by the INS of the word "apply."
The INS' ruling that parents should speak for their children in applying for asylum, holds the court, is reasonable. Further, the INS' choice is not [arbitrary and capricious]. Thus, the court should and does defer to the INS' ruling, and Lazaro cannot apply for asylum on Elian's behalf.
judicial foreign affairs deference; Chevron v NRDC.