Clark v. Martinez & Benitez v. Rozos (consolidated)
In 1980, both Martinez and Benitez attempted to enter the United States during the Mariel boatlift. The men were stopped at the border and denied entry into the country by government officials. The Attorney General, acting through the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), then paroled both men into the country pursuant to § 212(d)(5) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. During their time on parole in United States, both men were convicted of crimes “involving moral turpitude.” As a result of the convictions, the INS revoked their parole and took them into custody. The men were held in custody indefinitely, until their deportation back to Cuba could be arranged. Martinez and Benitez filed habeas corpus petitions in different district courts, challenging their indefinite detentions.
In Martinez’s case, the district court held that Martinez’s indefinite detention violated the Constitution and ordered his immediate release. The INS appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which affirmed the district court’s order. The court of appeals based its decision on Zadvydas v. Davis, in which the Supreme Court held that the INS could detain lawful permanent residents only for a “period of time reasonably necessary to remove them from the United States.”
In Benitez’s case, the district court determined that that Benitez was a “non-admitted parolee” and therefore Zadvydas, which applies only to resident aliens, was inapplicable. Therefore, the district court held that the INS had appropriately detained Benitez until his deportment to Cuba could be arranged. Benitez appealed to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, which affirmed the district court.
The cases were consolidated for hearing before the Supreme Court.
Questions Presented:
Benitez v. Wallis:
In Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001), this Court interpreted 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(6) to authorize the
detention of an alien subject to a removal order, but only for a reasonable period of time until it can be determined whether there is a country to which the alien can be removed. Although §
1231(a)(6) applies to both admitted and non-admitted aliens, the Court emphasized that the aliens at issue in Zadvydas had been lawfully admitted and that nonadmitted aliens "would present a very
different question." This case raises two, independent questions about the applicability of § 1231(a)(6) to nonadmitted aliens:
I. Whether the same language in § 1231(a)(6), which does not distinguish in its application between admitted and non-admitted aliens, may be interpreted differently for non-admitted aliens than for
admitted aliens; and, if not,
II. Whether interpreting § 1231(a)(6) to authorize the indefinite detention of a non-admitted alien would raise a constitutional question sufficient to warrant interpreting the statute to avoid the
question.
Crawford v. Martinez:
In Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U .S. 678 (2001), this Court avoided constitutional concerns by interpreting 8 U.S.C. 1231(a)(6) to limit to a "reasonable
time" the period that permanent resident aliens may be detained following final orders directing their removal from the United States. Applying that standard, the Court held that a resident alien
generally may not be detained under Section 1231(a)(6) for more than six months after being ordered removed, if the alien demonstrates that there is not a significant likelihood of removal in the
reasonably foreseeable future. The question presented in this case is whether Section 1231(a)(6) and Zadvydas compel the release of an arriving alien who was apprehended at the border of
the United States, denied admission, and ordered removed from the United States.
Decisions under Review:
Benitez v. Wallis
Martinez v. Smith, Unpublished Order (9th Circuit, August 18, 2003)
