Summary

Portrait of Antonin Scalia Antonin Scalia Immigration and Naturalization Service v… (1992)

If that is not well within the term "reasonably explain," the words of the regulation are a sham and a snare. To be sure, Doherty did, as the Attorney General said, make a "deliberate tactical decision" not to seek withholding from the United Kingdom as the specified alternate. But there is nothing unworthy about deliberate tactical decisions; waivers are not to be slapped upon them as penalties, but only to be discerned as the reasonable import of the action taken, or as the consequence prescribed by law. There was no waiver here.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Antonin Scalia Antonin Scalia Immigration and Naturalization Service v… (1992)

The provision in my view does not mean what the INS now asserts (if this is the regulation it has in mind) : that if a respondent fails to object to a particular country as a default destination he cannot later object when that country is substituted as his primary destination. For when he objects to a country that has been substituted as the primary destination, it is no longer "withholding of deportation to the country or countries specified by the special inquiry officer" under § 242.17 (c) that he is applying for, and hence it is no longer " [an] application under this section."
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature