Not a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Clark v. Suarez Martinez

Supreme Court of the United States

October 13, 2004, Argued ; January 12, 2005, 1 Decided

(No. 03-878), (No. 03-7434)

Opinion

 [*373]  [**720]  [***742]    Justice Scalia delivered the opinion of the Court.

LEdHN[1A][] [1A] LEdHN[2A][] [2A] LEdHN[3A][] [3A] HN1[] An alien arriving in the United States must be inspected by an immigration official, 66 Stat 198, as amended, 8 U.S.C. § 1225(a)(3), and, unless he is found "clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to be admitted," must generally undergo removal proceedings to determine admissibility, § 1225(b)(2)(A). Meanwhile the alien may be detained, subject to the Secretary's discretionary authority to parole him into the country. See § 1182(d)(5) [****6]  ; 8 C.F.R. § 212.5 (2004). If, at the conclusion of removal proceedings, the alien is determined to be inadmissible and ordered removed, the law provides that the Secretary of Homeland Security "shall remove the alien from the United States within a period of 90 days," 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(1)(A). These cases concern the Secretary's authority to continue to detain an inadmissible alien subject to a removal order after the 90-day removal period has elapsed.

LEdHN[1B][] [1B] LEdHN[2B][] [2B] LEdHN[3B][] [3B]  [*374]  Sergio Suarez Martinez (respondent in No. 03-878) and Daniel Benitez (petitioner in No. 03-7434) arrived in the United States from Cuba in June 1980 as part of the Mariel boatlift, see  Palma v. Verdeyen, 676 F.2d 100, 101 (CA4 1982) (describing circumstances of Mariel boatlift), and were paroled into the country pursuant to the Attorney General's authority under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(d)(5). 2 See Pet. for Cert. in No. 03-878, p 7;  [****7]   Benitez v. Wallis, 337 F.3d 1289, 1290 (CA11 2003).  Until 1996, federal law permitted Cubans who were paroled into the United States to adjust their status to that of lawful permanent resident after one year. See Cuban Refugee Adjustment Act, 80 Stat 1161, as amended, notes following 8 USC § 1255.  Neither Martinez nor Benitez qualified for this adjustment, however, because, by the time they applied, both men had become inadmissible because of prior criminal convictions in the United States. When Martinez sought adjustment in 1991, he had been convicted of assault with a deadly weapon in Rhode Island and burglary in California, Pet. for Cert. in No. 03-878, at 7; when Benitez sought adjustment in 1985, he had been convicted of grand theft in Florida,  337 F.3d, at 1290.  Both men were convicted of additional felonies after their adjustment applications were denied: Martinez of petty theft with a prior conviction (1996), assault with a deadly weapon (1998), and attempted oral copulation by force (1999), see Pet. for Cert. in No. 03-878, at 7-8; Benitez of two counts of armed robbery,  [****8]  armed burglary of a conveyance, armed burglary of a structure,  [**721]  aggravated battery, carrying a concealed firearm,  [*375]  unlawful possession of a firearm while engaged in a criminal offense, and unlawful  [***743]  possession, sale, or delivery of a firearm with an altered serial number (1993), see  337 F.3d, at 1290-1291.

The Attorney General revoked Martinez's parole [****9]  in December 2000. Martinez was taken into custody by the INS, and removal proceedings were commenced against him. Pet. for Cert. in No. 03-878, at 8. An Immigration Judge found him inadmissible by reason of his prior convictions, § 1182(a)(2)(B), and lack of sufficient documentation, § 1182(a)(7)(A)(i)(I), and ordered him removed to Cuba. Martinez did not appeal. Pet. for Cert. in No. 03-878, at 8. The INS continued to detain him after expiration of the 90-day removal period, and he remained in custody until he was released pursuant to the District Court order that was affirmed by the Court of Appeals' decision on review here. Id., at 9.

Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.

543 U.S. 371 *; 125 S. Ct. 716 **; 160 L. Ed. 2d 734 ***; 2005 U.S. LEXIS 627 ****; 73 U.S.L.W. 4100; 18 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 55

A. NEIL CLARK, FIELD OFFICE DIRECTOR, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON, IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, et al., Petitioners v. SERGIO SUAREZ MARTINEZ; DANIEL BENITEZ, Petitioner v. MICHAEL ROZOS, FIELD OFFICE DIRECTOR, MIAMI, FLORIDA, IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT

Subsequent History:  [****1] On remand at, Remanded by Benitez v. Wallis, 402 F.3d 1133, 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 4136 (11th Cir. Fla., 2005)

Motion denied by Benitez v. Rozos, 544 U.S. 998, 125 S. Ct. 1929, 161 L. Ed. 2d 771, 2005 U.S. LEXIS 3537 (U.S., 2005)

Prior History: ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT; ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT.

Benitez v. Wallis, 337 F.3d 1289, 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 14347 (11th Cir. Fla., 2003)

Disposition: Affirmed and remanded and reversed and remanded.

aliens, detention, removal, inadmissible, canon, detain, cases, indefinite, doubts, parole, lowest, common denominator, authorize, constitutional concern, circumstances, depending, courts, raises, Immigration, constitutional question, judicial review, interpretations, ambiguous, custody, statutory construction, constitutional limits, reasonably necessary, removal order, lenity, Arms

Immigration Law, Temporary Parole, Conditional Parole, Admission of Immigrants & Nonimmigrants, General Overview, Deportation & Removal, Administrative Proceedings, Hearing Procedures, Inadmissibility, Criminal Law & Procedure, Sentencing, Deportation & Removal, Authority of Immigration Judges, Bond, Custody & Detention, Effect & Execution of Orders, Governments, Federal Government, Domestic Security, Legislation, Interpretation, Interpretation, Rule of Lenity, Statutory Remedies & Rights, Civil Procedure, Subject Matter Jurisdiction, Supplemental Jurisdiction, Local Governments, Claims By & Against, Statute of Limitations, Tolling, Eligibility for Parole, Revocation & Termination