noting that “the ‘agency’ is the Department of Justice, because both the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the Board of Immigration Appeals are arms of the Department”
How later courts described this case
- noting that “the ‘agency’ is the Department of Justice, because both the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the Board of Immigration Appeals are arms of the Department”
- finding abuse of discretion in attempted deportation, of an alien who had relied on agency regulation’s definition of “investor” rather than an adjudicative definition enunciated after she had made her initial investment
- “[N]umerous authorities hold ‘that federal courts will require federal agencies to abide by the agency’s own regulations, [e]ven where the regulations are more generous than required by law.” (citations and internal quotations omitted)
- INS abused its discretion in establishing and applying new standard in adjudicatory process because alien relied on prior rule, did not have adequate notice, and suffered substantial adverse consequences
Written by the judges who cited it.
Distinguished
Distinguished by Cities of Anaheim, Riverside, Banning, Colton & Azusa v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 723 F.2d 656 (1984)
NLRB v. Wyman-Gordon Co., 394 U.S. 759, 89 S.Ct. 1426, 22 L.Ed.2d 709 (1969); Montgomery Ward & Co. v. FTC, 691 F.2d 1322 (9th Cir.1982); Patel v. INS, 638 F.2d 1199 (9th Cir.1980); Ruangswang, supra. This exception is inapplicable to the present case.
The opinion
SNEED, Circuit Judge:
I concur in Judge Wallace’s opinion.
Adjudication by an agency to establish a rule or policy inconsistent with its recently adopted regulation suggests administrative confusion and uncertainty. The costs of this inefficiency should not always be borne by the individual being governed. An in *47 stance in which society should bear these costs is where the individual had no reason to know that the word of the regulations is not the will of the agency. I think such a situation exists in this ease.