## Facts

- Two consolidated cases involved resident aliens subject to administrative deportation orders: Elizabeth Rosalia Woodby and Joseph Sherman.
- The dispute centered on the government’s burden of proof to establish deportability in deportation proceedings, not the substantive deportation grounds.
- In Sherman’s case, the government alleged he reentered the United States in 1938 without inspection after traveling under a passport obtained by falsely claiming U.S. citizenship.
- The government relied in part on documentary travel records and testimony from a witness whose identification of Sherman was uncertain and conceded to be potentially mistaken due to the passage of time.
- In both cases, a special inquiry officer ordered deportation, and the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissed administrative appeals.

## Issues

1. What standard of proof must the government satisfy in administrative deportation proceedings to establish the facts supporting deportability?
2. Whether statutory references to “reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence” set the government’s burden of persuasion at the administrative hearing or instead describe the scope of judicial review.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court held that no deportation order may be entered unless the government proves the alleged grounds of deportation by clear, unequivocal, and convincing evidence.
- The Court rejected the view that the INA’s “reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence” language sets the administrative burden of proof.
- The Court set aside the court of appeals judgments and remanded for reconsideration under the correct standard.

## Legal Principles

- In deportation proceedings, the government bears the burden to prove the facts supporting deportability by clear, unequivocal, and convincing evidence.
- INA provisions stating that deportation decisions must be supported by “reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence” address judicial review of the administrative record, not the standard of persuasion for the agency factfinder.
- Because deportation carries severe consequences, due process concerns justify a heightened evidentiary standard above a preponderance of the evidence, though not as high as beyond a reasonable doubt.

## Conclusion

The Court required a heightened proof standard in deportation proceedings—clear, unequivocal, and convincing evidence—and clarified that the INA’s “reasonable, substantial, and probative” formulation governs judicial review rather than the government’s evidentiary burden at the administrative hearing.


Woodby v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 385 U.S. 276 (1966)