Page:United States Reports 502 OCT. TERM 1991.pdf/486

 502us2$24h 01-22-99 08:25:35 PAGES OPINPGT

328

INS v. DOHERTY Opinion of Rehnquist, C. J.

Precisely because an alien may qualify for one form of relief from deportation, but not another, the INS allows aliens to plead in the alternative in immigration proceedings.11 There was nothing which prevented respondent from bringing evidence in support of his asylum and withholding of deportation claims at his first deportation proceeding, in case the Attorney General did contest his designation of Ireland as the country to which he be deported.12 Respondent chose, however, to withdraw those claims, even when expressly questioned by the Immigration Judge.13 The Court of Appeals rejected this ground for the Attorney General’s denial of reopening on the ground that his reasoning was “incompatible with any motion to reopen. . . .” 908 F. 2d, at 1122. It may be that the Attorney General has adopted a narrow, rather than a broad, construction of the its decision whether to reopen to permit a withholding of deportation request.” See supra, at 324. The opportunity for the alien to plead in the alternative is an ample basis for the Attorney General to find, without abusing his discretion in a situation such as the present one, that the failure of the alien to so plead has not been reasonably explained. 11 Indeed, in Abudu, supra, the alien had moved to reopen his deportation proceedings to pursue claims for asylum and withholding of deportation based on persecution he feared in his home country of Ghana in the event that his designation of England as the country of deportation proved ineffective. 485 U. S., at 97. 12 The Immigration Judge did prevent the INS from presenting evidence of additional grounds on which respondent could be deported once respondent had conceded deportability, but there is no indication that had respondent not withdrawn his claims at the September 12, 1986, proceeding, the Immigration Judge would not have allowed respondent to bring evidence in support of his application for asylum and withholding of deportation. App. to Pet. for Cert. 157a. 13 At the September 12, 1986, hearing, the Immigration Judge asked respondent’s counsel: “I just want to be sure. . . there won’t be any application for political asylum and/or withholding of deportation, correct?” to which respondent’s counsel replied: “That is correct.” The Immigration Judge asked again: “In other words, there is no application for relief from deportation that you will be making?” to which the response from counsel was again in the affirmative. App. 32.