Criminal Law Summaries
FindLaw > Criminal Law Summaries > Calcano-Martinez v. INS
Habeas Corpus Alien Deportation Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241
Case: Calcano-Martinez v. INS
Issue: Whether permanent resident aliens subject todeportation as a result of convictions for aggravated felonies mayseek relief in the federal appellate or district courts, or in anyforum at all.
Facts: Petitioners were lawful permanent resident alienssubject to deportation as a result of convictions for aggravatedfelonies. After the Board of Immigration Appeals determined thatpetitioners, as a matter of law, were ineligible to request adiscretionary waiver of deportation, under former § 212(c) ofthe Immigration and Nationality Act, each petitioner filed apetition for review in the United States Court of Appeals for theSecond Circuit, in addition to a habeas petition in the DistrictCourt. The Second Circuit consolidated, but dismissed, thepetitions for review, determining that it lacked jurisdiction tohear the petitioners claims under 8 U.S.C. §1252(a)(2)(c) [part of the Illegal Immigration Reform and ImmigrantResponsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA)], a statute stripping it of theability to adjudicate deportation appeals of aliens convicted ofaggravated felonies. The Second Circuit additionally concluded,however, that petitioners could pursue habeas relief in theDistrict Court under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
Holding: Under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(c), federalappellate courts lack jurisdiction to directly review the removalstatus of permanent resident aliens subject to deportation as aresult of convictions for aggravated felonies. Under 28 U.S.C. §2241, however, those permanent resident aliens may pursue claimsfor habeas relief in federal district courts.
Reasoning: As part of IIRIRA, Congress adopted newprovisions governing the judicial review of immigration orders. 8U.S.C. § 1252. Like the old statute, § 1252(a)(1) vestsfederal courts of appeals with the authority to consider petitionschallenging final orders commanding the removalof aliens from the United States. Unlike the old law, however,§ 1252(a)(2)(c) explicitly provides that federal appellatecourts may not exercise jurisdiction to review any finalorder of removal against any alien who is removable by reason of aconviction for certain criminal offenses, including any aggravatedfelony. Relying on the plain and unambiguous language of thisprovision, the Court determined that federal appellate courts maynot hear the claims of permanent resident aliens, such as thepetitioners, who have been rendered deportable by virtue ofconvictions for aggravated felony.
The Court, nevertheless, accepted petitioners argumentthat, notwithstanding the clear language of § 1252,constitutional considerations require that similarly-situatedaliens be afforded some forum for review of their claims. BecauseCongress has not unequivocally indicated an intent to the contrary,the Court reasoned that these [constitutional] concerns canbest be alleviated by construing the jurisdiction strippingprovisions of § 1252 not to preclude aliens frombringing habeas petitions in the federal district courts pursuantto 28 U.S.C. § 2241, the general federal habeas statute.
Other Opinions: For the reasons set forth in hisdissenting opinion in INS v. St. Cyr, Justice Scalia, joinedby Justices Rehnquist and Thomas, dissented from themajoritys ruling. Scalia would have vacated the judgmentbelow and remanded with instructions to dismiss with prejudice forlack of jurisdiction.
Justice OConnor, for the reasons set forth in herdissenting opinion in INS v. St. Cyr, also dissented fromthe majoritys ruling. Justice OConnor supported JusticeScalias proposed disposition of the petitionersclaims.
Comment: This is a companion case to INS v. St.Cyr and should be read in conjunction with that decision.