By: dmc-admin//September 10, 2001//
“In an attempt to show that he has raised a substantial constitutional claim, Beslic argues that the language of 8 U.S.C. sec. 1182, which provides that aliens are inadmissible if they are attempting to enter the United States to ‘evade any law prohibiting the export of goods, technology, or sensitive information,’ is unconstitutionally vague. Although Beslic labels his argument as a vagueness challenge, it is clear from his brief that he is actually challenging the BIA’s decision to apply the admissibility statute to offenses such as his, which involve the export of non-classified materials without a license – a challenge that we are without jurisdiction to hear. Even if Beslic had properly articulated a vagueness challenge, it is questionable whether such a challenge to an admissibility statute would be cognizable. Although the Supreme Court has made it clear that an alien may bring a vagueness challenge to a deportation statute, see Jordan v. De George, 341 U.S. 223, 231, 71 S. Ct. 703, 95 L. Ed. 886 (1951), it is doubtful that an alien has a right to bring such a challenge to an admissibility statute. In Boutlier v. INS, 387 U.S. 118, 87 S. Ct. 1563, 18 L. Ed. 2d 661 (1967), the Supreme Court refused to entertain a vagueness challenge to an immigration statute that prohibited the admission of aliens ‘afflicted with psychopathic personality.’ Id. at 118, 123-24. The Court stated that ‘[t]he constitutional requirement of fair warning has no applicability to standards … for admission of aliens to the United States. … Congress has plenary power to make rules for the admission of aliens and to exclude those who possess those characteristics which Congress has forbidden.'”
Dismissed.
Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals, Kanne, J.