Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Cardoza-Fonseca

Summary

Justice Stevens delivered the Court's opinion holding that eligibility for discretionary asylum under § 208(a) does not require the more-likely-than-not showing required for withholding of deportation under § 243(h). The statutory text, structure, legislative history, and relationship to the United Nations Protocol establish that the standards differ, and the agency's contrary interpretation cannot override clear congressional intent. The Court affirmed the Ninth Circuit without prescribing a comprehensive definition of well-founded fear. Justice Blackmun concurred separately to emphasize the guidance provided by international materials, statutory language, and appellate decisions for the agency's further development of the standard. Justice Scalia concurred in the judgment, relying on plain meaning and statutory structure while criticizing the majority's legislative-history analysis and discussion of Chevron deference. Justice Powell, joined by Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justice White, dissented, arguing that the agency's interpretation was reasonable and deserved deference and that, independently, the agency had already considered respondent's application under a sufficiently lenient standard.