Wong Yang Sung v. McGrath

Supreme Court of the United States · 1950 · Administrative Law

Administrative LawAdministrative Procedure ActDeportation HearingsAdministrative Procedure ActAPA § 5APA § 7(a)formal adjudicationdeportation

Facts

Wong Yang Sung, a native and citizen of China, was arrested by immigration officials on a charge that he was unlawfully in the United States because he had overstayed shore leave as a member of a shipping crew. His deportation hearing was conducted before an immigrant inspector under Immigration Service practice in which hearing officers also performed investigative or prosecutorial functions, and the Government admitted the hearing did not comply with the Administrative Procedure Act. The inspector recommended deportation, the Acting Commissioner approved, and the Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed. Wong challenged only the validity of the hearing procedure.

Issue

Must administrative hearings in deportation cases conform to the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act? More specifically, are deportation proceedings covered by APA § 5, and are they exempt from APA hearing-officer requirements by APA § 7(a)?

Rule

APA § 5 applies to adjudications required by statute to be determined on the record after opportunity for an agency hearing, and that includes hearings whose necessity has been read into a statute by the Court to satisfy constitutional due process, not merely hearings expressly described in statutory text. Deportation proceedings are not exempt under APA § 7(a) unless the presiding officers are specially provided for by or designated pursuant to statute as hearing officers; general statutory authority to inspect, examine, administer oaths, and take evidence is insufficient.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Congress authorizes the Federal Residency Review Office to expel noncitizen dockworkers found unlawfully present, but the statute says only that the Director may issue an expulsion order. Federal courts have long construed the statute to require an evidentiary hearing before expulsion to avoid due process problems. The Office continues to use informal internal hearings that do not comply with the APA's formal hearing safeguards.

Is the Office most likely required to follow the APA's formal adjudication provisions in these expulsion hearings?

Explanation. The majority held that APA § 5 reaches adjudications required by statute, and that phrase includes hearings whose necessity has been read into a statute by the Court to preserve constitutionality. The Court rejected the argument that only express statutory hearing language suffices. Thus, where courts require a hearing as a matter of due process to sustain the statutory scheme, the APA's formal adjudication safeguards apply. (Derived from Wong Yang Sung v. McGrath (n.d.).)