§ 1General Provisions

 

Citizens and nationals of the United States may reside in American Samoa as of right.Such persons are not subject to arbitrary and capricious limitations regarding sponsorship of aliens; rather, matter is determined with references to valid statutes and regulations.Ki v. Immigration Board, 1 A.S.R.2d 99 (App. Div. 1983).

 

There are no exceptions to the statute permitting a person who has been a resident of American Samoa for ten years to become a permanent resident.O v. Fa’alevao, 2 A.S.R.2d 17 (App. Div. 1984).

 

American Samoa, unlike the fifty states and the other territories of the United States, is specifically excluded from the scope of federal immigration laws and has, pursuant to congressionally delegated authority, enacted its own immigration laws.8 U.S.C. § 1101(13), (29), (36), (38); A.S.C.A., Title 41.American Samoa Government v. Falefatu, 17 A.S.R.2d 114.

 

The basis of the United States’ immigration laws is the right of independent nation-states to protect their political institutions, their people, and their independent existence by legally and forcibly excluding undesirable foreigners.American Samoa Government v. Falefatu, 17 A.S.R.2d 114.

 

The sole, stated purpose of the territorial immigration statute is to preserve the “limited land resources, water, sewage facilities, and educational and economic opportunities” of American Samoa.A.S.C.A. § 41.0201.American Samoa Government v. Falefatu, 17 A.S.R.2d 114.

 

Under American Samoan law, the term “undocumented aliens” means aliens who have reached the borders of American Samoa but have not been authorized to remain as residents in the territory.Vaella’a v. Sunia, 1 A.S.R.3d 88 (Trial Div. 1997).

 

The power to protect American Samoa’s borders is vested in both the executive and legislative branches and the Governor’s authority over immigration matters is limited by the statutory grant of the Legislature.Vaella’a v. Sunia, 1 A.S.R.3d 88 (Trial Div. 1997).

 

Where Governor initiated amnesty program, allowing undocumented aliens to remain in territory, such program did not effectuate the purpose of limiting entry into American Samoa set forth in A.S.C.A. § 41.0201(b).Vaella’a v. Sunia, 1 A.S.R.3d 88 (Trial Div. 1997).

 

Although Governor may grant pardons, or amnesty, after convictions for immigration violations, he isn’t empowered to change a particular undocumented alien’s immigration status.Vaella’a v. Sunia, 1 A.S.R.3d 88 (Trial Div. 1997).

 

The governor’s constitutional pardoning power is expressly limited to pardons, even if that term is broadly construed to include amnesty grants, bestowed after convictions for criminal offenses.Even when the governor properly applies his pardoning power, the grantee’s immigration status must still be approved in compliance with the immigration laws of American Samoa. Vaella’a v. Sunia, 1 A.S.R.3d 134 (Trial Div. 1997).

 

The Governor is without authority to grant amnesty to undocumented aliens under his constitutional pardoning power or by other means.The governor can be empowered with that authority only by constitutional amendment or by legislative enactment. Vaella’a v. Sunia, 1 A.S.R.3d 134 (Trial Div. 1997).

 

The Governor is without authority to grant amnesty to undocumented aliens, who have not been convicted of any criminal offense related to their illegal presence in American Samoa, in the absence of an effective constitutional amendment or legislation authorizing the governor to grant amnesty to undocumented aliens.Vaella’a v. Sunia, 1 A.S.R.3d 134 (Trial Div. 1997).

 

While government employees need to provide different documents than other aliens, this does not exempt government employed aliens from other unequivocal requirements of the Immigration Act.Tuilefano v. Attorney General, 4 A.S.R.3d 67 (Trial Div. 2000).

 

Although Government employed aliens are exempt from the numerical limits on immigration set out in A.S.C.A. § 41.0304, they are not exempt them from registering with the Immigration Board.Tuilefano v. Attorney General, 4 A.S.R.3d 67 (Trial Div. 2000).

 

The Immigration Act provides that no alien may be employed without Immigration board approval, and this requirement includes persons employed by the government; and the government may not be subject to penalties for employing aliens without prior approval, it does not follow that such employment is allowed.Tuilefano v. Attorney General, 4 A.S.R.3d 67 (Trial Div. 2000).

 

Because the Immigration Act is inartfully drafted and contains ambiguities and inconsistencies, anomalies within it do not manifest deliberately carved out exemptions for alien government employees.Tuilefano v. Attorney General, 4 A.S.R.3d 67 (Trial Div. 2000).

 

The Immigration Act allows the Immigration Board to exclude all aliens, including American Samoa Government (“ASG”) employees; and the Act requires the Board’s approval for an alien employed by the ASG to enter American Samoa, the Board’s consent for the ASG to employ an alien, and the registration of aliens employed by the ASG.Tuilefano v. Attorney General, 4 A.S.R.3d 67 (Trial Div. 2000).

 

American Samoa law requires that every alien carry their registration card on their person at all times.Jiang v. Daewoosa Samoa, Ltd., 6 A.S.R.3d 138 (Trial Div. 2002).

 

§ 2Immigration Board

 

Lawful immigration board quorum requires presence of sufficient number of persons specificed in statute, and members may not delegate authority to sit on board in absence of statute to that effect.Yamazaki v. Immigration Board, 1 A.S.R.2d 8 (App. Div. 1980).

 

Determination that person is United States citizen precludes deportation or exclusion inquiry by immigration board.French v. Fa’alevao, 1 A.S.R.2d 44 (App. Div. 1980).

 

Court will not enforce a contested deportation order unless the record includes a statement of facts and authority upon which the immigration board relies.Fisher v. Fa’alevao, 1 A.S.R.2d 56 (App. Div. 1980).

 

Starting point for judicial inquiry in reviewing immigration board order is the record itself; where board did not supply a complete record of its proceedings, the missing facts would be found favorably to the appellant.A.S.C.A. § 41.0210.Rakhshan v. Immigration Board (Mem.), 13 A.S.R.2d 25.

 

A petition for review of an Immigration Board’s decision need not be dismissed or be refilled to correct the names of the appellees in the caption when the petition incorrectly included the American Samoa Government, the Attorney General, and the Chief Immigration Officer as appellees.A.S.C.A. §§ 41.0209, 43.0201(b); H.C.R. 3.Farapo v. American Samoa Government, 23 A.S.R.2d 51.

 

If made upon unlawful procedure, a decision of the Immigration Board may be reversed, modified, or remanded for further proceedings by the Appellate Division of the High Court.A.S.C.A. § 41.0212(3).Farapo v. American Samoa Government, 23 A.S.R.2d 136.

 

The ten-day statutory period for reporting an address change to the Immigration Board can only sensibly be given effect if the prescribed period is computed to exclude the last day when it happens to fall on a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday.A.S.C.A. § 41.0308(b).Farapo v. American Samoa Government, 23 A.S.R.2d 136.

 

The Immigration Board possesses jurisdiction to issue authorizations to aliens so that they may remain in American Samoa.Vaella’a v. Sunia, 1 A.S.R.3d 88 (Trial Div. 1997).

 

The Attorney General is charged with the administration and enforcement of the immigration laws except insofar as such laws relate to the powers, functions, and duties of the Immigration Board.Vaella’a v. Sunia, 1 A.S.R.3d 88 (Trial Div. 1997).

 

Even assuming the Attorney General has general authority to make original decisions on the immigration issues listed in A.S.C.A. § 41.0303, the Immigration Board remains ultimately responsible under A.S.C.A. § 41.0205(1) for the attorney general’s decisions in these matters.Vaella’a v. Sunia, 1 A.S.R.3d 134 (Trial Div. 1997).

 

The Immigration Board does not lose either its authority to make or responsibility for consummated decisions to grant first authorizations to remain simply by delegating any such power to the attorney general.Vaella’a v. Sunia, 1 A.S.R.3d 134 (Trial Div. 1997).

 

Under A.S.C.A. § 41.0206, the Attorney General (AG) has the legal authority to prevent the Immigration Board (IB) from acting, and so the AG did not act in its capacity as the Board’s attorney when it interpreted the Immigration Act as exempting American Samoa Government employees from IB approval and registration; therefore a decision by the court would not be advisory.Tuilefano v. Toetogata, 3 A.S.R.3d 161 (Trial Div. 1999)

 

Under A.S.C.A. § 41.0206, the Immigration Board (IB) is legally required to follow the Attorney General’s (AG) interpretation of the law, and where it therefore canceled deportation hearings despite its belief that the AG’s interpretation of the law was incorrect, a controversy exists between the parties, and there is sufficient adverse interest between them for the court to determine whether the IB must approve aliens employed by the American Samoa Government before they may enter American Samoa.Tuilefano v. Toetogata, 3 A.S.R.3d 161 (Trial Div. 1999)

 

Under A.S.C.A. § 41.0401, the Immigration Board of American Samoa Board is authorized to exclude any person who does not meet specified criteria, and because A.S.C.A. §§ 41.0201 and 41.0304 do not explicitly provide any exceptions, government employed aliens not meeting those criteria are subject to exclusion.Tuilefano v. Attorney General, 4 A.S.R.3d 67 (Trial Div. 2000).

 

Although Government employed aliens are exempt from the numerical limits on immigration set out in A.S.C.A. § 41.0304, they are not exempt them from registering with the Immigration Board.Tuilefano v. Attorney General, 4 A.S.R.3d 67 (Trial Div. 2000).

 

The Immigration Act provides that no alien may be employed without Immigration board approval, and this requirement includes persons employed by the government; and the government may not be subject to penalties for employing aliens without prior approval, it does not follow that such employment is allowed.Tuilefano v. Attorney General, 4 A.S.R.3d 67 (Trial Div. 2000).

 

The Immigration Act allows the Immigration Board to exclude all aliens, including American Samoa Government (“ASG”) employees; and the Act requires the Board’s approval for an alien employed by the ASG to enter American Samoa, the Board’s consent for the ASG to employ an alien, and the registration of aliens employed by the ASG.Tuilefano v. Attorney General, 4 A.S.R.3d 67 (Trial Div. 2000).

 

Immigration Board decisions receive expedited limited judicial review under appeals before the Appellate Division of the High Court in which the Board is the named respondent.Nat’l Pac. Ins. Co., Ltd., v. Comm’r, 5 A.S.R.3d 183 (Trial Div. 2001).

 

§ 3Exclusion

 

Under A.S.C.A. § 41.0401, the Immigration Board of American Samoa Board is authorized to exclude any person who does not meet specified criteria, and because A.S.C.A. §§ 41.0201 and 41.0304 do not explicitly provide any exceptions, government employed aliens not meeting those criteria are subject to exclusion.Tuilefano v. Attorney General, 4 A.S.R.3d 67 (Trial Div. 2000).

 

§ 4Deportation

 

§ 4(1)¾General Provisions

 

The Attorney General’s position on the immigration board denies an applicant due process of law.O v. Fa’alevao, 2 A.S.R.2d 17 (App. Div. 1984).

 

The power to expel aliens is a fundamental, sovereign power exercised by the political branches of government.American Samoa Government v. Falefatu, 17 A.S.R.2d 114.

 

Persons deemed deportable under the immigration statute are almost invariably deemed excludable from readmission; but in many circumstances, they be readmitted at the discretion of American Samoa’s Immigration Board and Attorney General.A.S.C.A. §§ 41.0613, 41.0615-16, 41.0617.American Samoa Government v. Falefatu, 17 A.S.R.2d 114.

 

American Samoa’s Attorney General may have the discretion to allow a deportable or excludable alien to return and/or remain in the territory.A.S.C.A. § 41.0617.American Samoa Government v. Falefatu, 17 A.S.R.2d 114.

 

The Government’s right to hold a prisoner gives rise to a correlative duty to protect that prisoner against assault and injury, especially when the prisoner is an immigration detainee who has been convicted of no crime.Rakhshan v. Tuilefano, 18 A.S.R.2d 18.

 

A prisoner detained for immigration purposes is entitled to relief from conditions of confinement that include exposure to other inmates of proven vicious temperament.Rakhshan v. Tuilefano, 18 A.S.R.2d 18.

 

It is not unreasonable to confine an immigration detainee and other non-dangerous inmates within an enclosed building for two hours a day while a dangerous inmate exercises and attends religious services.Rakhshan v. Tuilefano, 18 A.S.R.2d 46.

 

§ 4(2)¾Procedures

 

Under territorial immigration statute, the immigration board determines only whether an alien is deportable; the decision actually to deport a deportable alien is within the discretion of the attorney general.A.S.C.A. § 41.0616. Leti v. Immigration Board, 8 A.S.R.2d 107.

 

Order of deportation must be made by the Attorney General.A.S.C.A. § 41.0616.Rakhshan v. Immigration Board, 15 A.S.R.2d 29.

 

No substantive due process right exists for not being deported.American Samoa Government v. Falefatu, 17 A.S.R.2d 114.

 

American Samoa’s Attorney General has the power to “enforce and administer” the laws pertaining to immigration and the status of aliens, and the statutory procedures are the exclusive method for “determining the deportability of any person.”A.S.C.A. §§ 41.0103(a), 41.0614.American Samoa Government v. Falefatu, 17 A.S.R.2d 114.

 

The Immigration Board may deport an alien only after he has been accorded an opportunity for a public hearing.A.S.C.A. § 41.0205(2).Farapo v. American Samoa Government, 23 A.S.R.2d 136.

 

Although deportation hearings may be closed under certain circumstances, the Immigration Board may only close the hearings in a specific case to protect witnesses, the respondent, or the public interest and only if the interest in a closed hearing outweighs the “value of openness.”A.S.A.C. § 41.0807(a).Farapo v. American Samoa Government, 23 A.S.R.2d 136.

 

Aliens facing deportation hearings are to be given notice which is “reasonable under the circumstances.”A.S.C.A. §§ 41.0205(7)(a), 41.0607(a)(1).Farapo v. American Samoa Government, 23 A.S.R.2d 136.

 

Though the Immigration Board’s documents are confidential by statute, this statute may not be used to deny constitutionally guaranteed due-process rights, nor does it prohibit the Court from ordering the Attorney General to produce these records when needed.U.S. Constitution Amend. V; Rev. Const. Am. Samoa Art. I, § 2; A.S.C.A. § 41.0307.Farapo v. American Samoa Government, 23 A.S.R.2d 136.

 

An alien in a deportation proceeding is entitled to cross-examine the government’s witnesses, and an improper curtailment of this right constitutes a violation of procedural due process.U.S. Constitution Amend. V; Rev. Const. Am. Samoa Art. I, § 2; A.S.C.A. § 41.0205(7)(c); A.S.A.C. § 41.0807(a).Farapo v. American Samoa Government, 23 A.S.R.2d 136.

 

§ 4(3)¾Grounds

 

The statute providing that polygamists who are not permanent residents of American Samoa are excluded from admission into the Territory and are subject to deportation does not authorize the deportation of an alien who was not a polygamist at the time he entered the territory.Falelua v. Immigration Board, 2 A.S.R.2d 98 (App. Div. 1986).

 

When a person loses the status, which entitled him to enter or remain in the territory, he has no further right to remain indefinitely.A.S.C.A. § 41.0407.Rakhshan v. Immigration Board (Mem.), 13 A.S.R.2d 25.

 

Alien who wilfully fails to report a change of address to the immigration authorities is subject to deportation.A.S.C.A. § 41.0312.Rakhshan v. Immigration Board, 15 A.S.R.2d 29.

 

Alien may be deported on the ground of being the object of a valid foreign arrest warrant only when the warrant is issued by his country of citizenship. 15 A.S.R.2dA.S.C.A. § 41.0616(17).Rakhshan v. Immigration Board, 15 A.S.R.2d 29.

 

Alien who makes statements he knows are false in an immigration application is subject to deportation.A.S.C.A. § 41.0313.Rakhshan v. Immigration Board, 15 A.S.R.2d 29.

 

Immigration Board finding that an alien submitted false information “with intention to mislead the Board” implies that the alien knew the information was false.Rakhshan v. Immigration Board, 15 A.S.R.2d 29.

 

Person who loses the status on which his permit to enter the Territory was based is presumed not to be entitled to remain, and may rebut such presumption only by showing that he is of good character, has no excludable offenses or characteristics, has a local sponsor, is not likely to be a financial burden on Samoa, and offers a needed skill or expertise not readily available in American Samoa.A.S.C.A. § 41.0401.Rakhshan v. Immigration Board, 15 A.S.R.2d 29.

 

Government’s refusal to accept a surety bond in lieu of cash bail for an alien arrested for immigration offenses violated his constitutional rights, where government’s reason for refusal was its hope that his friends would put up the money it would otherwise cost the government to deport him.Rakhshan v. Immigration Board, 15 A.S.R.2d 29.

 

Criminal convictions are proper grounds for deportation.A.S.C.A. § 41.0616(4), (6), (9), (10), (11), (16); 8 U.S.C. § 1251(a)(5), (11), (14), (15), (16).American Samoa Government v. Falefatu, 17 A.S.R.2d 114.

 

The mere fact that a person who has committed a serious crime is required for that reason to return to his own country is not, absent extraordinary circumstances, either cruel or unusual.U.S. Const., Amend. VIII.American Samoa Government v. Falefatu, 17 A.S.R.2d 114.

 

A person who has been “convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude committed within 5 years after any entry” is deportable; if he were outside the territory, he would be excludable as a convicted felon.A.S.C.A. §§ 41.0615(8), 41.0617(4).American Samoa Government v. Falefatu, 17 A.S.R.2d 114.

 

§ 4(4)¾Stay of Order

 

SEE CIVIL PROCEDURE § 11(3) – STAY OF PROCEEDINGS

 

Filing of a petition for review of an immigration board decision does not automatically stay a final order of deportation made by the board.A.S.C.A. § 41.0646.Leti v. Immigration Board, 8 A.S.R.2d 107.

 

Appellate court cannot entertain an ex parte motion for stay of immigration order, since applicable rule requires that notice be given to all parties.Appellate Court Rule 18.Rakhshan v. Immigration Board, 12 A.S.R.2d 72.

 

Stay of deportation order should not be granted unless petitioner proves both that there is a substantial likelihood of his prevailing on the merits and that he will be greatly or irreparably injured if the stay is not granted.Rakhshan v. Immigration Board, 12 A.S.R.2d 72.

 

Proof of elements required for stay of deportation order ordinarily requires a hearing.Rakhshan v. Immigration Board, 12 A.S.R.2d 72.

 

Interlocutory stay of a deportation order should be granted only when there is a substantial likelihood that the petitioner will prevail on the merits and the petitioner will be greatly or irreparably injured if the stay is not granted.A.S.C.A. § 41.0211.Rakhshan v. Immigration Board (Mem.), 13 A.S.R.2d 25.

 

Because deportation tends severely to disrupt the life of the one deported, whether a stay is granted pending appeal of deportation order usually depends on whether the petitioner appears to have a good chance of prevailing.A.S.C.A. § 41.0211.Rakhshan v. Immigration Board (Mem.), 13 A.S.R.2d 25.

 

Where it was not clear from immigration board decision that in the absence of allegedly false statements the appellant would have been deported solely because he was no longer employed, and where the court had found no false statements in the record, a stay of deportation would be granted and the matter remanded for a new hearing.A.S.C.A. §§ 41.0210-11.Rakhshan v. Immigration Board (Mem.), 13 A.S.R.2d 25.

 

Pending civil suit by an alien in the High Court is not a ground on which the Court may grant a stay of deportation.Rakhshan v. Immigration Board, 15 A.S.R.2d 29.

 

§ 5Sponsors

 

Citizens and nationals of the United States may reside in American Samoa as of right.Such persons are not subject to arbitrary and capricious limitations regarding sponsorship of aliens; rather, matter is determined with references to valid statutes and regulations.Ki v. Immigration Board, 1 A.S.R.2d 99 (App. Div. 1983).

 

A.S.C.A. section 41.0606, providing that aliens must have a sponsor, is subject to abuse but it is not unconstitutional.Tuivai v. Suiava, 2 A.S.R.2d 35 (Trial Div. 1984).

 

Alien whose sponsor had moved out of the territory was left without a sponsor and would appear to have had the right to remain in the territory for only ten days.A.S.C.A. § 41.0408(i).Rakhshan v. Immigration Board (Mem.), 13 A.S.R.2d 25.

 

Although the Immigration Board may revoke a sponsorship without a sponsor’s permission, no statutory provision requires it to approve a sponsorship’s termination or gives it the power to impose conditions on a sponsorship’s termination.A.S.C.A. § 41.0408(f), (g).Farapo v. American Samoa Government, 23 A.S.R.2d 136.

 

The Immigration Board’s merely announcing a sponsorship’s termination fails to meet the notice requirements for a deportation hearing, as the notice must include the time and place of the hearing.A.S.C.A. §§ 41.0205(7)(a), 41.0607(a)(1).Farapo v. American Samoa Government, 23 A.S.R.2d 136.

 

Because a sponsor need not give the reasons for revoking a sponsorship, aliens facing deportation are not entitled to access to the Immigration Board’s confidential documents in order to determine if the sponsorship was revoked for the “wrong reasons.”A.S.C.A. § 41.0408(g).Farapo v. American Samoa Government, 23 A.S.R.2d 136.

 

The immigration laws allow an alien worker’s sponsor almost unlimited discretion to revoke sponsorship, the only requirement being that the sponsor provide written notice to the immigration board and the person sponsored of his or her intent to end the alien’s sponsorship.Jiang v. Daewoosa Samoa, Ltd., 6 A.S.R.3d 138 (Trial Div. 2002).