## Facts

- Karl Linnas, an Estonian-born immigrant, entered the United States in 1951 under the Displaced Persons Act and became a naturalized citizen in 1960.
- In his immigration process, Linnas swore that he had not advocated or assisted in persecution on account of race, religion, or national origin.
- Evidence later showed he had served during the German occupation of Estonia as chief of the Nazi concentration camp in Tartu and participated in atrocities, including against Jews.
- In a federal denaturalization action, a district court found Linnas procured citizenship through concealment and misrepresentation and revoked his citizenship.
- The Immigration and Naturalization Service initiated deportation proceedings and charged him as deportable under INA § 241(a)(19) for having ordered, incited, assisted, or otherwise participated in persecution.
- The immigration judge ordered deportation and, under INA § 243(a), designated the Soviet Union as the country of deportation; the BIA affirmed.
- Linnas sought judicial review, arguing the relevant INA provisions were an unconstitutional bill of attainder and that deportation to the Soviet Union was unlawful and unconstitutional, including due to U.S. nonrecognition of the Soviet annexation of Estonia and his fear of execution based on an in absentia Soviet death sentence.

## Issues

1. Whether INA §§ 241(a)(19), 243(h), and 244(e), as applied to Nazi persecutors, constitute an unconstitutional bill of attainder by legislatively inflicting punishment on an identifiable class without a judicial trial.
2. Whether the designation of the Soviet Union as the country of deportation under INA § 243(a) was unlawful or violated due process or equal protection, including arguments based on U.S. nonrecognition policy and anticipated treatment in the receiving country.

## Decision

- The Second Circuit denied the petition for review and affirmed the BIA’s deportation order.
- The court held the challenged INA provisions were not a bill of attainder because they did not legislatively determine guilt or impose punishment; they established civil immigration consequences implemented through adjudicatory proceedings.
- The court upheld designation of the Soviet Union as the country of deportation under INA § 243(a), relying in part on the Executive Branch’s view that removal there did not conflict with U.S. nonrecognition policy.
- The court rejected due process and equal protection challenges, citing the civil nature of deportation, the rationality of targeting persecutors for removal, and the extensive process Linnas received in denaturalization and deportation proceedings.

## Legal Principles

- A bill of attainder is a legislative act that determines guilt and inflicts punishment on an identifiable person or group without the protections of a judicial trial.
- Deportation, though severe, is generally treated as a civil, regulatory measure rather than criminal punishment for bill-of-attainder purposes.
- Immigration statutes that set deportability criteria and require individualized findings in adversarial administrative proceedings with judicial review do not constitute legislative adjudications of guilt.
- Under INA § 243(a), the deportation country selection follows a statutory sequence; the alien’s designation controls only if the designated country is willing and able to accept the alien.
- Courts give substantial weight to the Executive Branch on questions implicating foreign relations, including how removal interacts with nonrecognition policy.
- Equal protection challenges to immigration classifications are rejected where Congress’s distinction is rational; singling out participants in persecution for adverse immigration consequences is not invidious.
- Due process is satisfied where the noncitizen receives notice, representation, an opportunity to present evidence, and review within the administrative and judicial system.

## Conclusion

The Second Circuit affirmed Linnas’s deportation, holding that the INA’s Nazi-persecutor removal provisions imposed civil immigration consequences through individualized proceedings rather than legislative punishment, and that deportation to the Soviet Union was authorized by the statutory country-selection scheme and did not violate due process or equal protection.


Linnas v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 790 F.2d 1024 (2d Cir. 1986)