Clark, A. Neil (Field Office Dir. Immig. & Customs Enforcement) v. Martinez, Sergio / Benitez, Daniel v. Rozos, Mic (01/12/2005)

Questions presented: Whether 8 U.S.C. 1231(a)(6) and Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001) 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?

BY MAX SEIGLE, MEDILL NEWS SERVICE

Starting in April of 1980 and lasting through October of that year, the United States experienced the massive migration of Cubans seeking a better life for themselves in America.

Approximately 124,776 Cubans boarded overcrowded boats from the Port of Mariel, which Cuban President Fidel Castro opened April 1 for those wanting to escape his Communist regime. While welcomed by former President Jimmy Carter, the mostly blue-collar immigrants overwhelmed the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Services (INS).

Among the thousands of refugees known as Mariel Cubans was Daniel Benitez, who arrived at Key West, Fla. on June 26, 1980. Benitez left Cuba where he had been in prison for stealing a bag of rice for his family. Like the other Mariel Cubans, he was allowed into the United States as part of a major humanitarian effort supported by President Carter. Benitez, who was in his late-teens at the time, headed for Miami to be with his brother and cousins.

Three years into his new life in America, Benitez was convicted of grand theft for purchasing stolen stereo speakers. He was sentenced to three years' probation and subsequently denied U.S. citizenship based on that 1983 conviction. A decade later, Benitez pled guilty to armed robbery charges and was sentenced to 20 years in prison. An immigration judge ruled that these convictions warranted Benitez's deportation back to Cuba, although his native country would not take him back. Benitez was eventually transferred to INS custody in October 2001.

Frustrated with his indefinite detention, Benitez sought relief from a federal district court in Florida in January of 2002. He alleged that his detention was unconstitutional in light of the U.S. Supreme Court's 2001 decision in Zadvydas v. Davis.

In that case, the U.S. Supreme Court dealt with two resident aliens from Germany and Cambodia who had committed crimes in the United States and were later sent into INS custody. In their ruling, the justices interpreted the federal statute permitting alien detention beyond the 90 days required after the removal order is issued. The Court concluded that authorities can only hold aliens beyond the 90-day mark up to "a period reasonably necessary to bring about that alien's removal from the United States." The length for that period was determined to be six months, the Court said.

While Zadvydas specifically dealt with resident aliens, the justices said the federal statute, 8 U.S.C. 1231 (a)(6), applied to a broad category of aliens, including inadmissible ones like Benitez. He argued that, along with exceeding the reasonable time limitation, warrants his release. The government disagreed, saying the statute in question doesn't pertain to Mariel Cubans who "never effected entry into the United States."

The Florida district court ruled Benitez's detention was reasonable because Zadvydas centered on two resident aliens. The court also saw Benitez as a "danger to the community" and someone "likely to engage in future criminal activity." The INS believed Benitez was involved in a planned jail escape while in custody for his prior convictions.

Over the same period of time, another Mariel Cuban was taken into INS custody following criminal convictions in the United States.

At 25 years old, Sergio Suarez Martinez embarked on his journey to America on June 8, 1980 and settled in Fresno, Calif. His new life was off to a good start with marriage and the birth of a daughter. But in 1983, Martinez was convicted of assault with intent to murder and was sentenced to three years of probation.

That was the first of many crimes Martinez committed through July 1999. In that period, he was charged with burglary, petty theft, assault with a deadly weapon other than a firearm and attempted oral copulation. Collectively, he faced seven years in prison for those offences.

These criminal acts put Martinez in INS custody starting in December 2000. He also was found to be deportable by an immigration judge and was not accepted back by Cuba. Two years after being detained, Martinez filed a similar petition to Benitez's in a federal district court in Oregon. But he was successful. The district court ruling followed a 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decision in 2002 in Lin Guo Xi v. INS, in which the government lost on grounds that Zadvydas applies to inadmissible individuals. Martinez was eventually released from the INS after a stint at a half-way house in April of 2003.

In both cases, the losing parties appealed to higher courts. Benitez filed with the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals while the government fought for Martinez's custody in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

A decision came first for Benitez, who in July 2003 learned that his detention would continue. The 11th Circuit Court said inadmissible aliens, like Benitez, did not have constitutional rights precluding their indefinite detention. The judges wrote that granting them release after the six-month requirement set out in Zadvydas would be a "drastic expansion of the rights of inadmissible aliens, who have never gained entry into this country." Like the district court, the 11th circuit also raised security issues with Benitez being released. The court said allowing release after six months would "create an unprotected spot in this country's defense of its borders."

One month later, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the district court's decision to release Martinez. In its ruling the court said, "Our analysis of [8] U.S.C. 1231 (a)(6) begins and ends with Zadvydas v. Davis. Because the Supreme Court construed the statute, we are bound by that framework and thus are not called upon to address the scope of any constitutional claims of an inadmissable alien."

The government is now appealing its case to the U.S. Supreme Court as is Benitez. Given similar issues, the Supreme Court consolidated the cases when it agreed to review the issue.

Leading up to the oral arguments, both attorneys representing Martinez and Benitez emphasized the absolute uniformity in 8 U.S.C. 1231 (a)(6).

"The categories [of aliens] are treated identically so there's no reason to interpret the statute differently," said Christine Dahl, who is representing Martinez. She argues the government treats Mariel Cubans, who were welcomed into the United States in 1980, with less protection than immigrants crossing the border illegally.

John Mills, a Florida attorney representing Benitez, concurred and added: "A statute should only have one meaning, and once it's been interpreted, it should mean the same thing for everyone."

Mills reports his case received significant support as it headed to the Supreme Court. He said there were 10 amici filed in favor of Benitez, nine of which supported his client. One of the amicus briefs came from a consortium of six organizations, including the American Immigration Law Foundation and the Midwest Immigrant and Human Rights Center.

The brief argued that the Court's interpretation of 8 U.S.C. 1231 (a)(6) in Zadvydas should apply to Benitez "because it is the very statute under which the government claims authority for his detention." The brief also said the government would violate due process for inadmissible aliens, like Benitez, if the Court reinstates his INS custody. Specifically, the brief points to need for more adequate procedural protections for these aliens in government detention.

An amicus for Martinez said the government's position to detain him is weak in light of international law pertaining to refugees and U.S. intentions to welcome Mariel Cubans and resettle them in America. The amicus, filed by a group of national refugee resettlement and advocacy groups, said international law affords refugees similar rights and privileges as those citizens and permanent aliens enjoy, and therefore protects Mariel Cubans from indefinite detention under Zadvydas. The group also writes that over the past quarter century the United States has treated these Cubans "as refugees intended for resettlement and integration into this country." The amicus says these two arguments expose "the incongruity" of the government's position toward Mariel Cubans.

The two attorneys representing Martinez and Benitez say the Court's final decision in both cases will have a significant impact. Dahl reports there are 15,000 immigrants living in the United States who could be affected, plus the already 1,058 aliens who have been in INS custody for more than six months. Of those detained aliens, 750 are Mariel Cubans.

"There are thousands of people who could be subjected to indefinite detention if the government convinces the court to read the statute their way," Dahl said.

In his client's petition for writ of certiorari, Mills wrote that immigrants, like his client, face life behind bars if the Court favors the government in the Benitez case. According to Mills, Benitez has been detained in prisons across the country and is currently in a halfway house under INS supervision.

"Not only do the issues in this case affect thousands of people, the effect on their lives is profound," Mills wrote. "They face the very real possibility of spending the rest of their lives incarcerated."

Mills also pointed to the circuit court split on detention beyond the 90 days for inadmissible aliens. He says where the alien is located will determine his fate.

"If the splits are not resolved, they will likely have a substantial impact on the distribution of non-admitted aliens throughout the United States," Mills wrote.

On Jan. 12, 2005, the Court sided with the Cuban immigrants, holding 7-2 that under "1231(a)(6), inadmissible aliens may be detained beyond the 90-day removal period, but only for so long as is reasonably necessary to achieve removal.

Writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia saw no reason to distinguish between those admissible aliens whom the Court addressed in Zadvydas, and these Cuban immigrants, and applied the same 6-month presumptive detention period that had been established there.

Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the dissent for himself and Chief Justice William Rehnquist.

Attorneys:For Phil Crawford and later A. Neil Clark (U.S.):THEODORE B. OLSONSolicitor General, Counsel of RecordPETER D. KEISLERAssistant Attorney GeneralDONALD E. KEENEREMILY A. RADFORDJOHN ANDRE