Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Julio Flores v. Otis Bowen, Secretary of Health and Human Services
Citations: 790 F.2d 740; 1986 U.S. App. LEXIS 25274; 13 Soc. Serv. Rev. 362Docket: 85-6068
Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; May 23, 1986; Federal Appellate Court
The case centers on whether the Social Security Administration (SSA) can terminate Julio Flores' disability benefits based on his status as an alien, despite his valid work authorization. Flores, a Mexican citizen residing in the U.S. since 1969, received a Silva letter in 1977 that allowed him to remain and work in the U.S. The Social Security Act stipulates that aliens "permanently residing in the United States under color of law" are eligible for Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits. Initially, the SSA recognized Silva letter holders as eligible for SSI, issuing internal instructions and regulations to that effect. However, in December 1981, a court dissolved a related injunction, prompting the SSA to issue new directives that required Silva aliens to provide additional evidence of eligibility for SSI benefits. Despite this, the regulation affirming the eligibility of Silva letter holders remained unchanged. In 1982, the SSA notified Flores that his SSI benefits would terminate, a decision upheld by both an Administrative Law Judge and the Appeals Council. Flores subsequently sued the Department of Health and Human Services, but the district court granted summary judgment in favor of HHS, affirming the SSA's authority to deny benefits based on the new directive, despite the existing regulation that continued to recognize Flores' eligibility. The case highlights the regulatory framework surrounding alien eligibility for SSI benefits in the context of changing directives from the SSA. Appellant qualifies under the regulation governing Silva letters, which the government acknowledges he received and which remains unrevoked. The dissolution of the Silva injunction did not invalidate outstanding Silva letters but established a process for their revocation, requiring written notification from the INS to the class members. The ALJ confirmed that the INS has not initiated any deportation or revocation proceedings against appellant, affirming his valid work authorization. The government’s argument that internal instructions or agency correspondence can nullify this regulation is incorrect, as regulations have binding legal force until properly repealed. Any inconsistency with the Silva order renders the INS's actions ineffective. Therefore, appellant is entitled to continue receiving SSI benefits until the SSA repeals the regulation or the INS properly revokes his work authorization. The district court's judgment is reversed, and the government has the option to take action but must adhere to the existing regulation until then. Additionally, the government's recent claims regarding the regulation's validity lack persuasive support, and revocation of work authorization must follow proper procedures, including notice to the alien.