## Facts

- Balbeer Singh and 31 other asylum applicants arrived at a New York airport seeking entry to the United States.
- The applicants fled Afghanistan and traveled through other countries (including Pakistan and India) before attempting to enter the United States.
- They arrived with either no travel documents or fraudulent documents.
- Immigration inspectors determined the applicants were not clearly admissible and treated them as applicants for admission who were excludable, placing them in exclusion proceedings.
- The Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) detained the applicants during the exclusion process; for some, exclusion hearings and related proceedings took more than a year.
- Three applicants were removed at the conclusion of their exclusion proceedings, leaving 28 detained applicants involved in the federal case.
- Nineteen of the remaining applicants were found to have a well-founded fear of persecution if returned to Afghanistan and were granted withholding of removal (withholding of deportation), but all applications for asylum were denied.
- Although the applicants could appeal asylum denials, the administrative appeals process could take years, and the applicants remained subject to continued detention during those appeals.
- The prospect of continued confinement led some applicants to waive appeals to become eligible for parole sooner.
- The detained applicants filed a habeas petition challenging continued detention and the INS’s refusal to parole them, naming as respondents INS Commissioner Alan C. Nelson and New York INS officials responsible for detention decisions.

## Issues

1. Whether INS’s continued detention and refusal to parole arriving, excludable asylum applicants pending exclusion proceedings and appeals was an abuse of discretion under the INA’s parole statute (8 U.S.C. § 1182(d)(5)(A)).
2. Whether the detention and parole practices conflicted with the Refugee Act of 1980’s asylum framework and purposes for noncitizens who may apply for asylum upon arrival.
3. Whether prolonged detention of excludable arriving noncitizens without release or a bond-type hearing violated the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.
4. Whether detention and denial of parole violated U.S. obligations under the 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees (including the Convention’s Article 31) or customary international law.

## Decision

- The court denied the petition for a writ of habeas corpus and declined to order parole or other release.
- The court held that parole under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(d)(5)(A) is committed to the Attorney General’s discretion (delegated to INS) and is not a right of excludable arriving applicants.
- The court found no abuse of discretion in INS’s denial of parole, accepting INS reasons such as lack of valid documents, use of fraudulent documents, limited ties to the United States, and concern about nonappearance for hearings.
- The court ruled that the Refugee Act of 1980 did not create an entitlement to parole for arriving asylum applicants and did not displace the existing detention/parole scheme for applicants for admission.
- Applying the “entry fiction,” the court concluded that excludable arriving noncitizens have limited constitutional protections regarding admission and detention, and that detention pending exclusion proceedings did not violate due process under the governing framework.
- The court rejected reliance on the Refugee Protocol/Convention and customary international law as a basis to invalidate detention or compel parole, concluding that these sources did not supply an enforceable right to release in this context.

## Legal Principles

- Parole of arriving applicants for admission under INA § 212(d)(5)(A) is discretionary; it is a temporary permission to be physically present and does not constitute admission.
- Federal court review of parole denials for excludable arriving noncitizens is highly deferential and generally limited to checking for arbitrariness, irrationality, or impermissible considerations.
- Under the “entry fiction,” a noncitizen stopped at the threshold of entry, though physically present, is treated as not having entered for many constitutional purposes; the political branches have primary authority over detention and release rules tied to exclusion.
- The Refugee Act of 1980 guarantees access to the asylum process for those arriving at a port of entry, but it does not itself confer a right to parole or require release while asylum and exclusion matters are pending.
- International refugee instruments relied on by applicants (including Article 31’s restriction on “penalties” for illegal entry) do not, without domestic implementing rules creating a private right, compel parole or bar detention used to manage exclusion proceedings and ensure availability for removal if ordered.

## Conclusion

Singh v. Nelson held that INS could keep arriving, excludable Afghan asylum applicants in detention and deny them parole during prolonged exclusion and appeal proceedings because parole decisions are discretionary under the INA, the Refugee Act did not create a release entitlement, due process protections were limited for applicants at the threshold of entry, and the Refugee Protocol/Convention did not provide an enforceable right to be released from detention.


Singh v. Nelson, 623 F. Supp. 545 (1985)