## Facts

- Masoud Mahdjoubi, an Iranian national, entered the United States as a nonimmigrant student authorized to attend Santa Barbara City College until September 10, 1978.
- Mahdjoubi began attending a different school without obtaining INS permission and fell out of student status.
- INS took Mahdjoubi into custody on March 22, 1979, and scheduled a deportation hearing for April 17, 1979; his requests to extend stay and approve the school transfer were denied.
- On April 16, 1979, the INS Commissioner issued a directive granting many Iranian nationals deferred departure until September 1, 1979, while allowing deportation proceedings to continue; it did not restore nonimmigrant status.
- After the November 1979 Iran hostage crisis, the President announced a policy to review Iranian students’ status and remove those violating immigration laws.
- On November 15, 1979, the Acting INS Commissioner issued a directive revoking prior deferred departure dates for Iranian nationals and directing those without lawful status to depart promptly or face enforcement.
- Mahdjoubi and other Iranian nationals sued federal immigration officials, asserting due process violations, APA violations for lack of notice-and-comment, FOIA-based claims, and an argument that the directive was an unauthorized foreign-policy action.
- The district court denied relief, and Mahdjoubi appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the INS directive revoking deferred departure was a permissible implementation of presidential policy, rather than an unauthorized independent act of foreign policy.
2. Whether revocation of deferred departure deprived affected Iranian nationals of a protected liberty or property interest without due process.
3. Whether the directive was a “rule” requiring APA notice-and-comment rulemaking.
4. Whether FOIA publication or disclosure requirements required relief or limited enforceability of the directive.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of relief.
- The court held the revocation directive fell within the scope of the President’s publicly stated policy and was not a “renegade” foreign-policy action.
- The court held that deferred departure was discretionary and revocable and did not create a protected liberty or property interest triggering the procedural protections sought.
- The court rejected the APA claim, treating the directive as an exercise of enforcement discretion not requiring notice-and-comment procedures.
- The court found the FOIA-based arguments did not warrant the injunctive relief requested.

## Legal Principles

- Executive-branch immigration directives that implement clearly articulated presidential policies tied to foreign affairs and immigration enforcement are generally within delegated authority.
- Deferred departure is a discretionary, revocable enforcement decision concerning the timing of removal; it does not confer a vested right to remain until a specified date.
- Agency statements directing enforcement priorities or use of prosecutorial discretion may be treated as nonlegislative policy guidance rather than substantive rules requiring APA notice-and-comment.
- Courts may resolve immigration disputes connected to foreign affairs on narrow grounds and avoid broader constitutional or separation-of-powers questions when unnecessary to decide the case.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit upheld the INS’s revocation of previously granted deferred departure for Iranian nationals during the hostage-crisis period, concluding the action implemented presidential policy and did not violate due process, the APA, or FOIA in a way that entitled plaintiffs to relief.


Yassini v. Crosland, 618 F.2d 1356 (9th Cir. 1980)