Mr. Justice Harlan,

after making, the foregoing statement, delivered the opinion of the court.

It will conduce to a clear understanding of the questions to be determined if we recall certain legislation of Congress relating to the exclusion of aliens from the United States, and to the treaty of 1894 between Japan and the United States.

By the Deficiency Appropriation Act of October 19,1888, c. 1210, it was provided that the act of February 23,1887, c. 220, amendatory of the act prohibiting the importation and immigration of foreigners and aliens under contract or agreement to perform labor in the United States, its Territories, and the District of Columbia, 24 Stat. 414, be so amended “ as to authorize the Secretary of the Treasury, in case he shall be satisfied that an immigrant has been allowed to land contrary to the prohibition of that law, to cause such immigrant within period of one year after landing or entry, to be taken into custody and returned to the country from whence he came, at the expense of the owner of the importing vessel, or, if he entered from an adjoining country, at the expense of the person previously contracting for the services.” 25 Stat. 566.

By the first section of the act of Congress of March 3, 1891, c. 551, amendatory of the various acts relating to immigration and importation of aliens under contract or agreement to perform labor, it was provided: “ That the following classes of aliens shall be excluded from admission into the United States, in accordance Avith the existing acts regulating immigration, other than those concerning Chinese laborers: All idiots, insane persons, paupers or persons likely to become a public charge, persons suffering from a loathsome or a dangerous contagious disease, persons Avho have been convicted of a felony or other infamous crime or misdemeanor involving moral turpitude, polygamists, and also any person whose ticket or passage is paid for Avith the money of another or Avho is assisted by others to come, unless it is affirmatively and satisfactorily shown on *95special inquiry that such person does not belong to one of the foregoing excluded classes, or to the class of contract laborers excluded by the act of February twenty-sixth, eighteen hundred and eighty-five, (23 Stat. 332.) : . . ” 26 Stat. 1084.

.By the eighth section of that act it was provided: “That upon the arrival by water at any place within the United States of any alien immigrants it shall be the duty of the commanding officer and the agents of the steam or sailing vessel by which they came to report the name, nationality, last residence, and destination of every such alien, before any of them are landed, to the proper inspection officers, who shall thereupon go or send competent assistants on board such vessel and there inspect all such aliens, or the inspection officers may order a temporary removal of such aliens for examination at a designated time and place, and then and there detain them until a thorough inspection is made. . . . The inspection officers and their assistants shall have power to administer oaths, and to take and consider testimony touching the right of any such aliens to enter the United States, all of which shall be entered of record. During such inspection after temporary removal the superintendent shall cause such aliens to be properly housed, fed, and cared for, and also, in his discretion, such as are delayed in proceeding to their destination after inspection. All decisions made by the inspection officers or their assistants touching the right of any alien to land, when adverse to such right, shall be final unless appeal be taken to the superintendent of immigration, whose action shall be subject to review by the Secretary of the Treasury. It shall be the duty of the aforesaid officers and agents of such vessel to adopt due precautions to prevent the landing of any alien immigrant at any place or time other than that designated by the inspection officers, and any such officer or agent or person in charge of such vessel who shall either knowingly or negligently land or permit to land any alien immigrant at any place or time other than that designated by the inspection officers, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and punished by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars, or by imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year, or by both such fine and imprisonment. . . , ” 26 Stat, 1085,

*96By the tenth section it is provided that “ all aliens who may unlawfully come to .the United States shall, if practicable, be immediately sent back on the vessel by which they were brought in.”

The eleventh section of the same act provided : “ That any alien who shall come into the United States in violation of law may be returned as by law provided, at any time within one year thereafter, at the expense of the person or persons, vessel, transportation company, or corporation bringing such alien into the United States, and if that cannot be done, then at the expense of the United States; and.any alien who becomes a public charge within one year after his arrival in the United States from causes existing prior to his landing therein shall be deemed to have come in violation of law and shall be returned as aforesaid.” 26 Stat. 1084.

In the Sundry Civil Appropriation Act of August 18, 1894, c. 301, was the following provision: “ In every case where an alien is excluded from admission into the United States under any law or treaty now existing or hereafter made, the decision of the appropriate immigration or customs officers, if adverse to the admission of such alien, shall be final, unless reversed on appeal to the Secretary of the Treasury.” 28 Stat. 372, 390.

Then came the treaty between the United States and the Empire of Japan, concluded November 23,1894, and proclaimed March 21, 1895, and which by its terms was to- go into operation July 17, 1899. By the first article of that treaty it Avas provided: “ The citizens or subjects of each of the two high contracting parties shall have full liberty to enter, travel or reside in any part of the territories of the other contracting party, and shall enjoy full and perfect protection for their persons and property.” 29 Stat. 848. But by the second article it was declared: “ It is, hoAvever, understood that the stipulations contained in this and the preceding article do not in any way affect the laws, ordinances and regulations with regard to trade, the immigration of laborers, police and public security which are in force or which may hereafter be enacted in either of the two countries.” 29 Stat. 849.

1. From the aboAe acts of Congress it appears that among *97the aliens forbidden to enter the United States.are those, of whatever country., who are “ paupers or persons likely to-.betj'ome a public charge.” We are of opinion that aliens of that class have-not been given by the treaty with-Japan full liberty to enter or reside in' the United States; for that instrument expressly excepts from its operation any ordinance or regulation relating to “ police and public security.” A statute exclud-. ing paupers or persons likely to become a public charge is manifestly one of police and public security. Aside from that specific exception, we should not be inclined to hold that the provision in the treaty with Japan that the citizens or subjects of each'of the two countries should have “full liberty to enter, travel or reside in any part of 'the territories of the other contracting party,” has any reference to that class, .in either' country, who from their habits or condition are ordinarily or properly the object of police regulations designed to protect the general.public against contact with dangerous or improper persons.

2. The constitutionality of the legislation in question, in its general aspects, is no longer open to discussion in this court. That Congress may exclude aliens of a particular race from the United States; prescribe the terms and conditions upon which certain classes of aliens may come to this country; establish regulations for sending out of the country such aliens as come here in violation of law ; and commit the enforcement of such provisions, conditions and regulations exclusively to executive officers, without judicial intervention, are principles firmly established by the decisions of this court. Nishimum Ekiu v. United States, 142 U. S. 651; Fong Yue Ting v. United States, 149 U. S. 698 ; Lem Moon Sing v. United States, 158 U. S. 538; Wong Wing v. United States, 163 U. S. 228; Fok Yung Yo v. United States, 185 U. S. 296, 305.

In Nishimura’s case the court said: “ The supervision of the admission of aliens into the United States may be entrusted by Congress either to the Department of State, having the general management of foreign relations, or to the Department of the Treasury, charged with the enforcement of the laws regulating foreign commerce; and Congress has often passed *98acts forbidding the immigration of particular classes of foreigners, and has committed the execution of these acts to the Secretary of the Treasury, to collectors of customs and to inspectors- acting under their authority.” After observing that Congress, if it saw fit, could authorize the courts to investigate and ascertain the facts on which depended the right of the alien to land, this court proceeded : “ But, on the other hand, the final determination of those facts may be entrusted by Congress to executive officers ; and in such a case, as in all others, in which a statute gives a discretionary power to an officer, to be exercised by him upon his own opinion of certain facts, he is made the sole and exclusive judge of the existence of those facts, and no other tribunal, unless expressly authorized by law to do so, is at liberty to reexamine or controvert the sufficiency of the evidence on which he acted. Martin v. Mott, 12 Wheat. 19, 31; Philadelphia & Trenton Railroad v. Stimpson, 14 Pet. 448, 458; Benson v. McMahon, 127 U. S. 457 ; In re Oteiza, 136 U. S. 330. It is not within the province of the judiciary to order that foreigners who have never been naturalized, nor acquired any domicil or residence within the United States, nor even been admitted into the country pursuant to law, shall be permitted to enter, in opposition to the constitutional and lawful measures of the legislative and executive branches of the National Government. As to such persons, the decisions of executive or administrative officers, acting within powers expressly conferred by Congress, are due process of law. Murray v. Hoboken Co., 18 How. 272; Hilton v. Merritt, 110 U. S. 97.”

In Lem Moon Sing's case it was said : “ The power of Congress to exclude aliens altogether from the United States, or to prescribe the terms and conditions upon which they may come to this country, and to have its declared policy in that regard enforced exclusively through executive officers, without judicial intervention, is settled by our previous adjudications.” And in Fok Yung Yo's case, the latest one in this court, it was said : “ Congressional action has placed the final determination of the right of admission in executive officers, without judicial *99intervention, and this has been for many years the recognized and declared policy of the country.”

What was the extent of the authority of the executive offi-cers of the Government over the petitioner after she landed 1 As has been seen, the Secretary of the Treasury, under the above act of October 19, 1888, c. 1210, was authorized, within one year after an alien of the excluded Class entered the country, to cause him to be taken into custody and returned to the country whence he came. Substantially the same power was conferred-by the act of March 3, 1891, c. 551, by the eleventh section of which it is provided that the alien immigrant may be sent out of the country, “ as provided by law,” at any time within the year after his illegally coming into the United States. Taking all its enactments together, it is clear that Congress did not intend that the mere admission of an alien, or his mere entering the country, should place him at all times thereafter entirely beyond the control or authority of the executive officers of the Government. On the contrary, if the Secretary of the Treasury became satisfied that the immigrant had been allowed to land contrary to the prohibition of that law, then he could at’ any time within a year after the landing cause the immigrant to be taken into custody and deported. The immigrant must be taken to- have entered subject to the condition that he might be sent out of the country by order of the proper executive: officer if within a year he was found to have been wrongfully, admitted into or had illegally entered the United States. These' were substantially the view's expressed by the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in United States v. Yamasaka, 100 Fed. Rep. 404.

It is contended, however, that in respect of an alien who has already landed it is consistent with the acts of Congress that he may be deported without previous notice of any purpose to deport him, and without any opportunity on his part to show by competent evidence before the executive officers charged with the execution of the acts of Congress, that he is not here in violation of law; that the deportation of an alien without provision for such a notice and for an opportunity to be heard *100was inconsistent with the due process of law required, by the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution.

Leaving on one side the question whether an alien can rightfully invoke the due process clause of the Constitution who has entered the country clandestinely, and who has been here for too brief a period to have become, in any real sense, a part of our population, before his right to remain is disputed, we have to say that the rigid construction of the acts of Congress suggested by the appellant are not justified. Those acts do. not necessarily exclude opportunity to the immigrant to be heard, when such opportunity is of right. It was held in Murray’s Lessee v. Hoboken Land & Improvement Co., 18 How. 272, 280, 281, 283, that “though ‘due process of law’ generally implies and includes actor, reus, judex, regular allegations, opportunity to answer and á trial according to some course of' judicial proceedings, yet this is not universally true; ” and that “ though, generally, both public and private wrong are redressed through judicial action, there are more summary extra-judicial remedies for both.” Hence, it was decided in that case to be consistent with due process of law for Congress to provide summary means to compel revenue officers — and in case of default, their sureties — to pay such balances of the public money as might be in their hands. Now, it has been settled that the power to exclude or expel alieps belonged to the political department of the Government, and that the order of an executive officer, invested with the power to determine finally the facts upon which an' alien’s right to enter this country, or remain in it, depended,' was “ due process of law, and no other tribunal, unless expressly authorized by law to do so, was at liberty to reexamine the evidence on which he acted, or to controvert its sufficiency.” Fong Yue Ting v. United States, 149 U. S. 698, 713; Nishimura Ekiu v. United States, 142 U. S. 651, 659; Lem Moon Sing v. United States, 158 U. S. 538, 547. But this court has never held, nor must we now be understood as holding, that administrative officers, when executing the provisions of a statute involving the liberty of persons, may disregard the fundamental principles that inhere in “ due process of law ” as understood at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. *101One of these principles is that no person shall be deprived of his liberty without opportunity, at some time, to be heard, before such officers, in respect of the matters upon which that liberty depends — not necessarily an opportunity upon a regular, set occasion, and according to the forms of judicial procedure, but one that will secure the prompt, vigorous action contemplated by Congress, and at the same time be appropriate to the nature of the case upon which such officers are required to act. Therefore, it is not competent for the Secretary of the Treasury or any executive officer, at any time within the year limited by the statute, arbitrarily to cause an alien, who has entered the country, and has become subject in all respects to its jurisdiction, and a part of its population, although alleged to, be illegally here, to be taken into custody and deported without giving him all opportunity to be heard upon the questions involving his right to be and remain in the United States. No such arbitrary power can exist where the principles involved in due process of law are recognized.

This is the reasonable construction of the acts of Congress here in question, and they need not be otherwise interpreted. In the case of all acts of Congress, such interpretation ought to be adopted as, without doing violence to the import of the words used, will bring them into harmony with the Constitution. An act of Congress must be taken to be constitutional unless the contrary plainly and palpably appears. The words here used do not require an interpretation that would invest executive or administrative officers with the absolute, arbitrary power implied in the contention of the appellant. Besides, the record now before us shows that the appellant had notice, although not a formal one, of the investigation instituted for the purpose of ascertaining whether she was illegally in this country. The traverse to the return made by the Immigration Inspector shows upon its face that she was before that officer pending the investigation of her right to be in the United States, and made answers to questions propounded to her. It is true that she pleads a want of knowledge of our language; that she did not understand the nature and import of the questions propounded to her; that the investigation made was a *102“ pretended” one; and that'she did not, at the time, know that the investigation had reference to her being deported from the country. These considerations cannot justify the intervention of the courts. They could have been presented to the officer having primary control of such a case, as well as upon an appeal to the Secretary of the Treasury, who had power to order another investigation if that course was demanded by law or by the ends of justice. It is not to be assumed that either would have refused a second or fuller investigation, if a proper application and showing for one had been made by or for the appellant. Whether further investigation should have been ordered was for the officers, charged with the execution of the statutes, to determine. Their action in that regard is not subject to judicial review. Suffice it to say, it does not appear that appellant was denied an opportunity to be heard. And as no appeal was taken to the Secretary from the decision of the Immigration Inspector, that decision was final and conclusive. If the appellant’s want of knowledge of the English language put her at some disadvantage in the investigation conducted by that officer, that was her misfortune, and constitutes no reason, under the acts of Congress, or under any rule of law, for the intervention of the court by habeas corpus. We perceive no ground for such intervention — none for the contention that due process of law was denied to appellant.

The judgment is

Affirmed.

Me. Justice Brewer and Mr. Justice Peckham dissented.

Mr. Justice Burton

delivered the opinion of the Court.

A preliminary consideration that is helpful to the solution of this litigation is whether, under 8 CFR § 175.57 (b),1 the Attorney General has authority to deny to a lawful permanent resident of the United States, *592who is an alien continuously residing and physically present therein, the opportunity to be heard in opposition to an order for his “permanent exclusion” and consequent deportation, provided the Attorney General determines that the order is based on information of a confidential nature, the disclosure of which would be prejudicial to the public interest. Assuming, as seems to be clear, that the Attorney General does not have such authority, the critical issue then presented is whether he has that authority under the following additional circumstances: the resident alien is a seaman, he currently maintains his residence in the United States and usually is physically present there, however, he is returning from a voyage as a seaman on a vessel of American registry with its home port in the United States, that voyage has included scheduled calls at foreign ports in the Far East, and he is detained on board by order of the Attorney General. For the reasons hereafter stated, we hold that these additional circumstances do not change the result and that the Attorney General does not have the authority suggested.

Petitioner, Kwong Hai Chew, is a Chinese seaman last admitted to the United States in 1945. Thereafter, he married a native American and bought the home in which they reside in New York. Having proved his good moral character for the preceding five years, petitioner secured suspension of his deportation. In 1949, he was admitted to permanent residence in the United *593States as of January 10, 1945.2 In World War II, he served with credit in the United States Merchant Marine. He never has had any difficulty with governmental authorities. In April, 1950, he filed a petition for natural*594ization which is still pending. In November, 1950, he was screened and passed by the Coast Guard for employment as a seaman on a merchant vessel.3 In the same month he signed articles of employment as chief steward on the S. S. Sir John Franklin, a vessel of American registry with its home port in New York City. The voyage was to include calls at several foreign ports in the Far East. He remained aboard the vessel on this voyage but, at San Francisco, in March, 1951, the immigration *595inspector ordered him “temporarily excluded,” under 8 CFR § 175.57, as an alien whose entry was deemed prejudicial to the public interest.

On the vessel’s arrival in New York, March 29, petitioner’s “temporary exclusion” was continued and he was not permitted to land. March 30, he sought a writ of habeas corpus from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, charging that his detention was arbitrary and capricious and a denial of due process of law in violation of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Purporting to act under 8 CFR § 175.57 (b), the Attorney General directed that petitioner be denied a hearing before a Board of Special Inquiry and that his “temporary exclusion be made permanent.” The Attorney General continues to deny petitioner all information as to the nature and cause of any accusations against him and all opportunity to be heard in opposition to the order for his “exclusion.” He is detained at Ellis Island “for safekeeping on behalf of the master of the S. S. ‘Sir John Franklin.’ ”

The writ was issued but, after a hearing, it was dismissed by the District Court. 97 F. Supp. 592. The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed. 192 F. 2d 1009. Both courts relied upon Knauff v. Shaughnessy, 338 U. S. 537. We granted certiorari because of the doubtful applicability of that decision and the importance of the issue in the administration of the Nation’s immigration and naturalization program. 343 U. S. 933. Bail was denied by the District Court. 98 F. Supp. 717. It also was denied by the Court of Appeals, without prejudice to an application to this Court. Applications for bail are pending before the Commissioner of Immigration and Naturalization and this Court.

The issue is petitioner’s detention, without notice of any charge against him and without opportunity to be heard in opposition thereto. Petitioner contends that *596such detention is not authorized by 8 CFR § 175.57 (b). He contends also that, if that regulation does purport to authorize such detention, the regulation is invalid as an attempt to deprive him of his liberty without due process of law in violation of the Fifth Amendment. Agreement with petitioner’s first contention makes it unnecessary to reach his second.

The case of Knauff v. Shaughnessy, supra, relied upon below, is not in point. It relates to the rights of an alien entrant and does not deal with the question of a resident alien’s right to be heard. For purposes of his constitutional right to due process, we assimilate petitioner’s status to that of an alien continuously residing and physically present in the United States.4 To simplify the issue, we consider first what would have been his constitutional right to a hearing had he not undertaken his voyage to foreign ports but had remained continuously within the territorial boundaries of the United States.

1. It is well established that if an alien is a lawful permanent resident of the United States and remains physically present there, he is a person within the protection of the Fifth Amendment. He may not be deprived of his life, liberty or property without due process of law.5 *597Although it later may be established, as respondents contend, that petitioner can be expelled and deported, yet before his expulsion, he is entitled to notice of the nature of the charge and a hearing at least before an executive or administrative tribunal.6 Although Congress may pre*598scribe conditions for his expulsion and deportation, not even Congress may expel him without allowing him a fair opportunity to be heard.7 For example, he is entitled to a fair chance to prove mistaken identity. At the present stage of the instant case, the issue is not one of exclusion, expulsion or deportation. It is one of legislative construction and of procedural due process.8

This being recognized, we interpret this regulation as making no attempt to question a resident alien’s consti*599tutional right to due process. Section 175.57 (b) uses the term “excludable” in designating the aliens to which it applies. That term relates naturally to entrant aliens and to those assimilated to their status. The regulation nowhere refers to the expulsion of aliens, which is the term that would apply naturally to aliens who are lawful permanent residents physically present within the United States. Accordingly, we find no language in the regulation that would have required its application to petitioner had he remained continuously and physically within the United States.9 It thus seems clear that the Attorney General would not have had the authority to deny to petitioner a hearing in opposition to such an order as was here made, provided petitioner had remained within the United States.

The regulation before us was issued by the Secretary of State and concurred in by the Attorney General, pursuant to Presidential Proclamations No. 2523, 3 CFR, 1943 Cum. Supp., 270, and No. 2850, 3 CFR, 1949 Supp., 41. The latter proclamation issued August 17, 1949, also “ratified and confirmed” the regulation. Those proclamations, in turn, depend upon § 1 of the Act of May 22, 1918, 40 Stat. 559, as amended, June 21, 1941, 55 Stat. *600252, 22 U. S. C. § 223. It is not questioned that the regulation, as above interpreted, comes within these authorizations, or that such authorizations have been extended to include the dates material in this case. 66 Stat. 163, 333. We find nothing in the statute or the proclamations which calls for, permits or sustains a broader interpretation of 8 CFR § 175.57 (b) than we have given to it. The wording also now reflects congressional intent because substantially the same language was inserted by Congress in the Subversive Activities Control Act of 1950, 64 Stat. 1008. See note 1, supra.

2. Petitioner’s final contention is that if an alien is a lawful permanent resident of the United States and also is a seaman who has gone outside of the United States on a vessel of American registry, with its home port in the United States, and, upon completion of such voyage, has returned on such vessel to the United States and is still on board, he is still, from a constitutional point of view, a person entitled to procedural due process under the Fifth Amendment. We do not regard the constitutional status which petitioner indisputably enjoyed prior to his voyage as terminated by that voyage. From a constitutional point of view, he is entitled to due process without regard to whether or not, for immigration purposes, he is to be treated as an entrant alien, and we do not now reach the question whether he is to be so treated.

Section 175.57 (b)’s authorization of the denial of hearings raises no constitutional conflict if limited to “excludable” aliens who are not within the protection of the Fifth Amendment. The assimilation of petitioner, for constitutional purposes, to the status of a continuous resident physically present in the United States also accords with the Nation’s immigration and naturalization program. For example, for purposes of naturalization, such an assimilation was expressly prescribed in the Nationality Act of 1940:

*601“Sec. 307. (a) No person . . . shall be naturalized unless such petitioner, (1) immediately preceding the date of filing petition for naturalization has resided continuously within the United States for at least five years ....

“(d) The following shall be regarded as residence within the United States within the meaning of this chapter:

“(2) Continuous service by a seaman on a vessel or vessels whose home port is in the United States and which are of American registry or American owned, if rendered subsequent to the applicant’s lawful entry into the United States for permanent residence and immediately preceding the date of naturalization.” 54 Stat. 1142-1143, 8 U. S. C. § 707. See also, § 325, 54 Stat. 1150, as amended, 64 Stat. 1015, 8 U. S. C. (Supp. V) § 725.10

While it may be that a resident alien’s ultimate right to remain in the United States is subject to alteration by statute or authorized regulation because of a voyage undertaken by him to foreign ports, it does not follow that he is thereby deprived of his constitutional right to procedural due process. His status as a person within the meaning and protection of the Fifth Amendment cannot be capriciously taken from him. Where neither Congress, the President, the Secretary of State nor the Attorney General has inescapably said so, we are not *602ready to assume that any of them has attempted to deprive such a person of a fair hearing.11

This preservation of petitioner’s right to due process does not leave an unprotected spot in the Nation’s armor. Before petitioner’s admission to permanent residence, he was required to satisfy the Attorney General and Congress of his suitability for that status.12 Before receiving clearance for his foreign cruise, he was screened and approved by the Coast Guard.13 Before acceptance of his petition for naturalization, as well as before final action thereon, assurance is necessary that he is not a security risk. See 8 U. S. C., c. 11, Subchapter III — Nationality Through Naturalization, §§ 701-747, as amended.

We do not reach the issue as to what would be the constitutional status of 8 CFR § 175.57 (b) if it were interpreted as denying to petitioner all opportunity for a hearing. Also, we do not reach the issue as to what will be the authority of the Attorney General to order the deportation of petitioner after giving him reasonable notice of the charges against him and allowing him a *603hearing sufficient to meet the requirements of procedural due process.

For the reasons stated, we conclude that the detention of petitioner, without notice of the charges against him and without opportunity to be heard in opposition to them, is not authorized by 8 CFR § 175.57 (b). Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is

Reversed and the cause remanded to the District Court.

Mr. Justice Minton dissents.

Justice O’Connor

delivered the opinion of the Court.

Following an exclusion hearing, the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) denied the respondent, a permanent resident alien, admission to the United States when she attempted to return from a brief visit abroad. Reviewing the respondent’s subsequent petition for a writ of habeas corpus, the Court of Appeals vacated the decision, holding that the question whether the respondent was attempting to “enter” the United States could be litigated only in a deportation hearing and not in an exclusion hearing. Because we conclude that the INS has statutory authority to proceed in an exclusion hearing, we reverse the judgment below. We remand to allow the Court of Appeals to consider whether the respondent, a permanent resident alien, was accorded due process at the exclusion hearing.

*23I

Respondent Maria Antonieta Plasencia, a citizen of El Salvador, entered the United States as a permanent resident alien in March 1970. She established a home in Los Angeles with her husband, a United States citizen, and their minor children. On June 27, 1975, she and her husband traveled to Tijuana, Mexico. During their brief stay in Mexico, they met with several Mexican and Salvadoran nationals and made arrangements to assist their illegal entry into the United States. She agreed to transport the aliens to Los Angeles and furnished some of the aliens with alien registration receipt cards that belonged to her children. When she and her husband attempted to cross the international border at 9:27 on the evening of June 29, 1975, an INS officer at the port of entry found six nonresident aliens in the Plasencias’ car. The INS detained the respondent for further inquiry pursuant to § 235(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (Act), 66 Stat. 182, as amended, 8 U. S. C. §1101 et seq. 1 In a notice dated June 30, 1975, the INS charged her under §212(a)(31) of the Act, 8 U. S. C. § 1182(a)(31), which provides for the exclusion of any alien seeking admission “who at any time shall have, knowingly and for gain, encouraged, induced, assisted, abetted, or aided any other alien to enter or to try to enter the United States in violation of law,” *24and gave notice that it would hold an exclusion hearing at 11 a. m. on June 30, 1975.2

An Immigration Law Judge conducted the scheduled exclusion hearing. After hearing testimony from the respondent, her husband, and three of the aliens found in the Plasencias’ car, the judge found “clear, convincing and unequivocal” evidence that the respondent did “knowingly and for gain encourage, induce, assist, abet, or aid nonresident aliens” to enter or try to enter the United States in violation of law. He also found that the respondent’s trip to Mexico was a “meaningful departure” from the United States and that her return to this country was therefore an “entry” within the meaning of § 101(a)(13), 8 U. S. C. § 1101(a)(13).3 *25On the basis of these findings, he ordered her “excluded and deported.”

After the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissed her administrative appeal and denied her motion to reopen the proceeding, the respondent filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the United States District Court, seeking release from the exclusion and deportation order. The Magistrate initially proposed a finding that, on the basis of evidence adduced at the exclusion hearing, “a meaningful departure did not occur . . . and that therefore [the respondent] is entitled to a deportation hearing.” After considering the Government’s objections, the Magistrate declared that the Government could relitigate the question of “entry” at the deportation hearing. The District Court adopted the Magistrate’s final report and recommendation and vacated the decision of the BIA, instructing the INS to proceed against respondent, if at all, only in deportation proceedings.

The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed. Plasencia v. Sureck, 637 F. 2d 1286 (1980).

► — I

The immigration laws create two types of proceedings in which aliens can be denied the hospitality of the United States: deportation hearings and exclusion hearings. See generally Leng May Ma v. Barber, 357 U. S. 185, 187 (1958). The deportation hearing is the usual means of proceeding against an alien already physically in the United States, and the exclusion hearing is the usual means of proceeding against an alien outside the United States seeking admission. The two types of proceedings differ in a number of ways. See generally Maldonado-Sandoval v. INS, 518 F. 2d 278, 280, n. 3 (CA9 1975). An exclusion proceeding is usually held at the port of entry, while a deportation hearing is usually held near the residence of the alien within the United *26States, see 1A C. Gordon & H. Rosenfield, Immigration Law and Procedure § 5.6c (rev. ed. 1981). The regulations of the Attorney General, issued under the authority of § 242(b), 8 U. S. C. § 1252(b), require in most deportation proceedings that the alien be given seven days’ notice of the charges against him, 8 CFR §242.1(b) (1982), while there is no requirement of advance notice of the charges for an alien subject to exclusion proceedings. Indeed, the BIA has held that, “as long as the applicant is informed of the issues confronting him at some point in the hearing, and he is given a reasonable opportunity to meet them,” no further notice is necessary. In re Salazar, 17 I. & N. Dec. 167, 169 (1979). Also, if the INS prevails in a deportation proceeding, the alien may appeal directly to the court of appeals, § 106(a), 75 Stat. 651, as amended, 8 U. S. C. §1105a(a) (1976 ed. and Supp. V), while the alien can challenge an exclusion order only by a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, § 106(b), 75 Stat. 653, 8 U. S. C. § 1105a(b). Finally, the alien who loses his right to reside in the United States in a deportation hearing has a number of substantive rights not available to the alien who is denied admission in an exclusion proceeding: he can, within certain limits, designate the country of deportation, § 243(a), 8 U. S. C. § 1253(a) (1976 ed. and Supp. V); he may be able to depart voluntarily, § 244(e), 8 U. S. C. § 1254(e) (1976 ed., Supp. V), avoiding both the stigma of deportation, § 242(b), 8 U. S. C. § 1252(b) (1976 ed. and Supp. V), and the limitations on his selection of destination, § 243(a), 8 U. S. C. § 1253(a) (1976 ed. and Supp. V);4 or he *27can seek suspension of deportation, § 242(e), 8 U. S. C. § 1252(e) (1976 ed., Supp. V).

The respondent contends that she was entitled to have the question of her admissibility litigated in a deportation hearing, where she would be the beneficiary of the procedural protections and the substantive rights outlined above. Our analysis of whether she is entitled to a deportation rather than an exclusion hearing begins with the language of the Act. Section 285(a) of the Act, 8 U. S. C. § 1225(a), permits the INS to examine “[ajll aliens” who seek “admission or readmission to” the United States and empowers immigration officers to take evidence concerning the privilege of any person suspected of being an alien “to enter, reenter, pass through, or reside” in the United States. (Emphasis added.) Moreover, “every alien” who does not appear “to be clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to land shall be detained” for further inquiry. § 285(b). If an alien is so detained, the Act directs the special inquiry officer to determine whether the arriving alien “shall be allowed to enter or shall be excluded and deported.” § 236(a), 8 U. S. C. § 1226(a). The proceeding before that officer, the exclusion hearing, is by statute “the sole and exclusive procedure for determining admissibility of a person to the United States . . . .” Ibid.

The Act’s legislative history also emphasizes the singular role of exclusion hearings in determining whether an alien should be admitted. The Reports of both the House and Senate state:

“The special inquiry officer is empowered to determine whether an alien detained for further inquiry shall be excluded and deported or shall be allowed to enter after he has given the alien a hearing. The procedure established in the bill is made the sole and exclusive procedure for determining the admissibility of a person to the *28United States.” S. Rep. No. 1137, 82d Cong., 2d Sess., 29 (1952); H. R. Rep. No. 1365, 82d Cong., 2d Sess., 56 (1952).

The language and history of the Act thus clearly reflect a congressional intent that, whether or not the alien is a permanent resident, admissibility shall be determined in an exclusion hearing. Nothing in the statutory language or the legislative history suggests that the respondent’s status as a permanent resident entitles her to a suspension of the exclusion hearing or requires the INS to proceed only through a deportation hearing. Under the terms of the Act, the INS properly proceeded in an exclusion hearing to determine whether respondent was attempting to “enter” the United States5 and whether she was excludable.

HH HH

To avoid the impact of the statute, the respondent contends, and the Court of Appeals agreed, that unless she was “entering,” she was not subject to exclusion proceedings, and that prior decisions of this Court indicate that she is entitled to have the question of “entry” decided in deportation proceedings.

The parties agree that only “entering” aliens are subject to exclusion. See Brief for Petitioner 19. That view accords with the language of the statute, which describes the exclusion hearing as one to determine whether the applicant “shall be allowed to enter or shall be excluded and deported.” § 236(a), 8 U. S. C. § 1226(a) (emphasis added). But the respondent’s contention that the question of entry can be determined only in deportation proceedings reflects a misconception of our decisions.

In Rosenberg v. Fleuti, 374 U. S. 449 (1963), we faced the question whether a resident alien’s return from an afternoon *29trip across the border was an “entry” for immigration law purposes. The definition of that term was the same then as it is now: it means “any coming of an alien into the United States . . . except that an alien having a lawful permanent residence in the United States shall not be regarded as making an entry into the United States for the purposes of the immigration laws if the alien proves to the satisfaction of the Attorney General that his departure to a foreign port or place or to an outlying possession was not intended or reasonably to be expected by him . . . § 101(a)(13), 8 U. S. C. § 1101(a)(13). We held in Fleuti that the “intent exception” refers to an intent to depart in a “manner which can be regarded as meaningfully interruptive of the alien’s permanent residence.” 374 U.S, at 462. Thus, an “innocent, casual, and brief excursion” by a resident alien outside this country’s borders would not subject him to the consequences of an “entry” on his return. Ibid. If, however, “the purpose of leaving the country is to accomplish some object which is itself contrary to some policy reflected in our immigration laws, it would appear that the interruption of residence thereby occurring would properly be regarded as meaningful.” Ibid. That distinction both protects resident aliens from “unsuspected risks and unintended consequences of. . . a wholly innocent action,” ibid., and gives effect to the language of § 101(a)(13).6

*30The Government has argued in this case that Plasencia violated the immigration laws by attempting to smuggle aliens for gain. Therefore, her departure was “meaningfully interruptive” of her residence, she was attempting an “entry,” and she was subject to exclusion proceedings. And, the Government urges, under §212(a)(31), 8 U. S. C. § 1182(a)(31), she was excludable because she had attempted to smuggle aliens for gain. Plasencia, on the other hand, argues that it would “violat[e] both the scope and spirit,” Brief for Respondent 15, of Fleuti to permit the INS to litigate questions of “entry” in exclusion proceedings.

The Court of Appeals viewed Fleuti as a deportation case rather than an exclusion case, 637 F. 2d, at 1288, and therefore not relevant in deciding whether the question of “entry” could be determined in exclusion proceedings. For guidance on that decision, the Court of Appeals turned to Kwong Hai Chew v. Colding, 344 U. S. 590 (1953), which it read to hold that a resident alien returning from a brief trip “could not be *31excluded without the procedural due process to which he would have been entitled had he never left the country”— i. e., in this case, a deportation proceeding. 637 F. 2d, at 1288. The court concluded that Plasencia was entitled to litigate her admissibility in deportation proceedings. It would be “circular” and “unfair,” thought the court, to allow the INS to litigate the question of “entry” in exclusion proceedings when that question also went to the merits of the respondent’s admissibility. Id., at 1288-1289.

We disagree. The reasoning of Chew was only that a resident alien returning from a brief trip has a right to due process just as would a continuously present resident alien. It does not create a right to identical treatment for these two differently situated groups of aliens.7 As the Ninth Circuit seemed to recognize, if the respondent here was making an “entry,” she would be subject to exclusion proceedings. It is no more “circular” to allow the immigration judge in the exclusion proceeding to determine whether the alien is making an entry than it is for any court to decide that it has jurisdiction when the facts relevant to the determination of jurisdiction are also relevant to the merits. Thus, in United States v. Sing Tuck, 194 U. S. 161 (1904), this Court held that an immigration inspector could make a determination whether an applicant for admission was an alien or a citizen, although only aliens were subject to exclusion. Cf. Land v. Dollar, 330 U. S. 731, 739 (1947) (district court has jurisdiction to determine its jurisdiction by proceeding to a decision on the merits). Nor is it in any way “unfair” to decide the question of entry in exclusion proceedings as long as those proceedings themselves are fair. Finally, the use of exclusion proceed*32ings violates neither the “scope” nor the “spirit” of Fleuti. As the Court of Appeals held, that case only defined “entry” and did not designate the forum for deciding questions of entry. The statutory scheme is clear: Congress intended that the determinations of both “entry” and the existence of grounds for exclusion could be made at an exclusion hearing.

> HH

Our determination that the respondent is not entitled to a deportation proceeding does not, however, resolve this case. In challenging her exclusion in the District Court, Plasencia argued not only that she was entitled to a deportation proceeding but also that she was denied due process in her exclusion hearing. See App. 5, ¶ 9; Record 19, 20, 23. We agree with Plasencia that under the circumstances of this case, she can invoke the Due Process Clause on returning to this country, although we do not decide the contours of the process that is due or whether the process accorded Plasencia was insufficient.

This Court has long held that an alien seeking initial admission to the United States requests a privilege and has no constitutional rights regarding his application, for the power to admit or exclude aliens is a sovereign prerogative. See, e. g., United States ex rel. Knauff v. Shaughnessy, 338 U. S. 537, 542 (1950); Nishimura Ekiu v. United States, 142 U. S. 651, 659-660 (1892). Our recent decisions confirm that view. See, e. g., Fiallo v. Bell, 430 U. S. 787, 792 (1977); Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U. S. 753 (1972). As we explained in Johnson v. Eisentrager, 339 U. S. 763, 770 (1950), however, once an alien gains admission to our country and begins to develop the ties that go with permanent residence, his constitutional status changes accordingly. Our cases have frequently suggested that a continuously present resident alien is entitled to a fair hearing when threatened with deportation, see, e. g., United States ex rel. Tisi v. Tod, 264 U. S. 131, 133, 134 (1924); Low Wah Suey v. Backus, 225 U. S. 460, *33468 (1912) (hearing may be conclusive “when fairly conducted”); see also Kwong Hai Chew, 344 U. S., at 598, n. 8, and, although we have only rarely held that the procedures provided by the executive were inadequate, we developed the rule that a continuously present permanent resident alien has a right to due process in such a situation. See, e. g., United States ex rel. Vajtauer v. Commissioner of Immigration, 273 U. S. 103, 106 (1927); The Japanese Immigrant Case, 189 U. S. 86,100-101 (1903); see also Wong Yang Sung v. McGrath, 339 U. S. 33, 49-50 (1950); Bridges v. Wixon, 326 U. S. 135, 153-154 (1945).

The question of the procedures due a returning resident alien arose in Kwong Hai Chew v. Colding, supra. There, the regulations permitted the exclusion of an arriving alien without a hearing. We interpreted those regulations not to apply to Chew, a permanent resident alien who was returning from a 5-month voyage abroad as a crewman on an American merchant ship. We reasoned that, “[f ]or purposes of his constitutional right to due process, we assimilate petitioner’s status to that of an alien continuously residing and physically present in the United States.” 344 U. S., at 596. Then, to avoid constitutional problems, we construed the regulation as inapplicable. Although the holding was one of regulatory interpretation, the rationale was one of constitutional law. Any doubts that Chew recognized constitutional rights in the resident alien returning from a brief trip abroad were dispelled by Rosenberg v. Fleuti, where we described Chew as holding “that the returning resident alien is entitled as a matter of due process to a hearing on the charges underlying any attempt to exclude him.” 374 U. S., at 460.

If the permanent resident alien’s absence is extended, of course, he may lose his entitlement to “assimilation of his] status,” Kwong Hai Chew v. Colding, supra, at 596, to that of an alien continuously residing and physically present in the United States. In Shaughnessy v. United States ex rel. Mezei, 345 U. S. 206 (1953), this Court rejected the argu*34ment of an alien who had left the country for some 20 months that he was entitled to due process in assessing his right to admission on his return. We did not suggest that no returning resident alien has a right to due process, for we explicitly reaffirmed Chew. We need not now decide the scope of Mezei; it does not govern this case, for Plasencia was absent from the country only a few days, and the United States has conceded that she has a right to due process, see Tr. of Oral Arg. 6, 9, 14; Brief for Petitioner 9-10, 20-21.

The constitutional sufficiency of procedures provided in any situation, of course, varies with the circumstances. See, e. g., Lassiter v. Department of Social Services, 452 U. S. 18, 24-25 (1981); Greenholtz v. Nebraska Penal Inmates, 442 U. S. 1, 12 (1979); Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U. S. 471, 481 (1972). In evaluating the procedures in any case, the courts must consider the interest at stake for the individual, the risk of an erroneous deprivation of the interest through the procedures used as well as the probable value of additional or different procedural safeguards, and the interest of the government in using the current procedures rather than additional or different procedures. Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U. S. 319, 334-335 (1976). Plasencia’s interest here is, without question, a weighty one. She stands to lose the right “to stay and live and work in this land of freedom,” Bridges v. Wixon, supra, at 154. Further, she may lose the right, to rejoin her immediate family, a right that ranks high among the interests of the individual. See, e. g., Moore v. City of East Cleveland, 431 U. S. 494, 499, 503-504 (1977) (plurality opinion); Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U. S. 645, 651 (1972). The Government’s interest in efficient administration of the immigration laws at the border also is weighty. Further, it must weigh heavily in the balance that control over matters of immigration is a sovereign prerogative, largely within the control of the Executive and the Legislature. See, e. g., Fiallo, supra, at 792-793; Knauff, supra, at 542-543; The Japanese Immigrant Case, supra, at 97. The role of the judiciary *35is limited to determining whether the procedures meet the essential standard of fairness under the Due Process Clause and does not extend to imposing procedures that merely displace congressional choices of policy. Our previous discussion has shown that Congress did not intend to require the use of deportation procedures in cases such as this one. Thus, it would be improper simply to impose deportation procedures here because the reviewing court may find them preferable. Instead, the courts must evaluate the particular circumstances and determine what procedures would satisfy the minimum requirements of due process on the reentry of a permanent resident alien.

Plasencia questions three aspects of the procedures that the Government employed in depriving her of these interests. First, she contends that the Immigration Law Judge placed the burden of proof upon her. In a later proceeding in Chew, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit held, without mention of the Due Process Clause, that, under the law of the case, Chew was entitled to a hearing at which the INS was the moving party and bore the burden of proof. Kwong Hai Chew v. Rogers, 103 U. S. App. D. C. 228, 257 F. 2d 606 (1958). The BIA has accepted that decision, and although the Act provides that the burden of proof is on the alien in an exclusion proceeding, § 291, 8 U. S. C. § 1361 (1976 ed., Supp. Y), the BIA has followed the practice of placing the burden on the Government when the alien is a permanent resident alien. See, e. g., In re Salazar, 17 I. & N. Dec., at 169; In re Kane, 15 I. & N. Dec. 258, 264 (BIA 1975); In re Becerra-Miranda, 12 I. & N. Dec. 358, 363-364, 366 (BIA 1967). There is no explicit statement of the placement of the burden of proof in the Attorney General’s regulations or in the Immigration Law Judge’s opinion in this case and no finding on the issue below.

Second, Plasencia. contends that the notice provided her was inadequate. She apparently had less than 11 hours’ notice of the charges and the hearing. The regulations do not *36require any advance notice of the charges against the alien in an exclusion hearing, and the BIA has held that it is sufficient that the alien have notice of the charges at the hearing, In re Salazar, supra, at 169. The United States has argued to us that Plasencia could have sought a continuance. It concedes, however, that there is no explicit statutory or regulatory authorization for a continuance.

Finally, Plasencia contends that she was allowed to waive her right to representation, § 292, 8 U. S. C. § 1362,8 without a full understanding of the right or of the consequences of waiving it. Through an interpreter, the Immigration Law Judge informed her at the outset of the hearing, as required by the regulations, of her right to be represented. He did not tell her of the availability of free legal counsel, but at the time of the hearing, there was no administrative requirement that he do so. 8 CFR § 236.2(a) (1975). The Attorney General has since revised the regulations to require that, when qualified free legal services are available, the immigration law judge must inform the alien of their existence and ask whether representation is desired. 44 Fed. Reg. 4654 (1979) (codified at 8 CFR § 236.2(a) (1982)). As the United States concedes, the hearing would not comply with the current regulations. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 11.

If the exclusion hearing is to ensure fairness, it must provide Plasencia an opportunity to present her case effectively, though at the same time it cannot impose an undue burden on the Government. It would not, however, be appropriate for us to decide now whether the new regulation on the right to notice of free legal services is of constitutional magnitude or whether the remaining procedures provided comport with the Due Process Clause. Before this Court, the parties have devoted their attention to the entitlement to a deportation hearing rather than to the sufficiency of the procedures in the *37exclusion hearing.9 Whether the several hours’ notice gave Plasencia a realistic opportunity to prepare her case for effective presentation in the circumstances of an exclusion hearing without counsel is a question we are not now in a position to answer. Nor has the Government explained the burdens that it might face in providing more elaborate procedures. Thus, although we recognize the gravity of Plasencia’s interest, the other factors relevant to due process analysis — the risk of erroneous deprivation, the efficacy of additional procedural safeguards, and the Government’s interest in providing no further procedures — have not been adequately presented to permit us to assess the sufficiency of the hearing. We remand to the Court of Appeals to allow the parties to explore whether Plasencia was accorded due process under all of the circumstances.

Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

It is so ordered.

Justice Marshall,

concurring in part and dissenting in part.

I agree that the Immigration and Nationality Act permitted the INS to proceed against respondent in an exclusion *38proceeding. The question then remains whether the exclusion proceeding held in this case satisfied the minimum requirements of the Due Process Clause. While I agree that the Court need not decide the precise contours of the process that would be constitutionally sufficient, I would not hesitate to decide that the process accorded Plasencia was insufficient.1

The Court has already set out the standards to be applied in resolving the question. Therefore, rather than just remand, I would first hold that respondent was denied due process because she was not given adequate and timely notice of the charges against her and of her right to retain counsel and to present a defense.2

While the type of hearing required by due process depends upon a balancing of the competing interests at stake, due process requires “at a minimum . . . that deprivation of life, liberty or property by adjudication be preceded by notice and opportunity for hearing.” Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U. S. 306, 313 (1950). See, e. g., Bell v. Burson, 402 U. S. 535, 542 (1971). Permanent resident aliens who are detained upon reentry into this country clearly are entitled to adequate notice in advance of an exclusion proceeding.

*39To satisfy due process, notice must “clarify what the charges are” in a manner adequate to apprise the individual of the basis for the government’s proposed action. Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U. S. 539, 564 (1974). Notice must be provided sufficiently in advance of the hearing to “give the charged party a chance to marshal the facts in his defense.” Id., at 563, 564 (prisoners charged with disciplinary violations must be given “advance written notice of the claimed violation”). See, e. g., Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U. S. 254, 267-268 (1970) (welfare recipients must be given “timely and adequate notice detailing the reasons for a proposed termination”); In re Gault, 387 U. S. 1, 33 (1967) (juvenile must be given notice of “the specific charge or factual allegations” to be considered at delinquency hearing “at the earliest practicable time, and in any event sufficiently in advance of the hearing to permit preparation”).

Respondent was not given notice sufficient to afford her a reasonable opportunity to demonstrate that she was not excludable. The Immigration Judge’s decision to exclude respondent was handed down less than 24 hours after she was detained at the border on the night of June 29,1975. By notice in English dated June 30, 1975, she was informed that a hearing would be conducted at 11 o’clock on the morning of that same day, and that the Government would seek to exclude her on the ground that she had “wilfully and knowingly aided and abetted the entry of illegal aliens into the United States in violation of the law and for gain.”3 It was not until the commencement of the hearing that she was given notice in her native language of the charges against her and of her right to retain counsel and to present evidence.

The charges against Plasencia were also inadequately explained at the hearing itself.4 The Immigration Judge did not explain to her that she would be entitled to remain in the *40country if she could demonstrate that she had not agreed to receive compensation from the aliens whom she had driven across the border.5 Nor did the judge inform respondent that the meaningfulness of her departure was an issue at the hearing.

These procedures deprived Plasencia of a fair opportunity to show that she was not excludable under the standards set forth in the Immigration and Nationality Act. Because Pla-sencia was not given adequate notice of the standards for exclusion or of her right to retain counsel and present a defense, she had neither time nor opportunity to prepare a response to *41the Government’s case. The procedures employed here virtually assured that the Government attorney would present his case without factual or legal opposition.

When a permanent resident alien’s substantial interest in remaining in this country is at stake, the Due Process Clause forbids the Government to stack the deck in this fashion. Only a compelling need for truly summary action could justify this one-sided proceeding. In fact, the Government’s haste in proceeding against Plasencia could be explained only by its desire to avoid the minimal administrative and financial burden of providing her adequate notice and an opportunity to prepare for the hearing. Although the various other Government interests identified by the Court may be served by the exclusion of those who fail to meet the eligibility requirements set out in the Immigration and Nationality Act, they are not served by procedures that deny a permanent resident alien a fair opportunity to demonstrate that she meets those eligibility requirements.

I would therefore hold that respondent was denied due process.