In the Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Assibi Abudu case of 1987, the U.S Supreme Court ruled that federal courts have jurisdiction to review deportation orders even when an immigrant has failed to raise all claims for relief during administrative proceedings. The case involved Assibi Abudu, a Ghanaian national who was ordered deported after he overstayed his visa in the United States. He sought political asylum on grounds of fear of persecution if returned to Ghana but did not present this claim at his initial hearing before an immigration judge. His request was denied by both the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) and a Federal Appeals court due to procedural default rules which limit judicial review unless issues were raised in earlier proceedings. However, upon reaching the Supreme Court, it held that under Section 106(a) of Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), federal courts had broad authority over final orders including those involving questions not raised initially with BIA.

In the dissenting opinion for Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Assibi Abudu, Justice White argued that the majority's decision to allow a motion to reopen deportation proceedings based on an asylum claim was incorrect. He contended that such motions should only be granted in exceptional situations where there is new evidence or changed circumstances which could not have been presented at the original hearing. In this case, he believed that no such conditions existed as Abudu had already had ample opportunity to present his claims during previous hearings but failed to do so adequately. Furthermore, he expressed concern over potential abuse of this ruling by those seeking delay of their deportations through repeated filings for reopening cases without substantial justification.