Kim Ho Ma v. Reno
2000 Daily Journal DAR 3695, 2000 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2744, 208 F.3d 815 (2000)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The immigration statute authorizing detention of a removable alien "beyond the removal period," 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(6), does not permit the indefinite detention of an alien who has entered the United States. Detention is only authorized for a reasonable time, and an alien must be released if there is no reasonable likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future.
Facts:
- Kim Ho Ma, a native of Cambodia, fled his country as a refugee at the age of two.
- After spending years in refugee camps, Ma lawfully entered the United States in 1985 at age six and later became a lawful permanent resident.
- In 1996, at the age of seventeen, Ma was convicted of first-degree manslaughter for a gang-related shooting.
- Ma served a 26-month prison sentence for his conviction.
- Upon his release from state prison, the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) took him into custody for removal.
- The United States does not have a repatriation agreement with Cambodia, making it impossible for the INS to remove Ma to his country of origin.
Procedural Posture:
- After Kim Ho Ma completed his state prison sentence, the INS took him into custody and initiated removal proceedings.
- An immigration judge found Ma removable, and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), an administrative appellate body, affirmed this decision, making the removal order final.
- Ma filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, challenging the legality of his continued detention.
- The district court (a federal trial court) granted Ma's petition, holding that his detention violated his substantive due process rights, and ordered his release.
- The INS (respondents) appealed the district court's decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(6), which authorizes the detention of certain removable aliens "beyond the removal period," permit the Attorney General to detain such an alien indefinitely when there is no reasonable likelihood of removal in the foreseeable future?
Opinions:
Majority - Reinhardt, J.
No. The statute does not permit the indefinite detention of removable aliens who have entered the United States. Applying the canon of constitutional avoidance, the court holds that 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(6) implicitly contains a 'reasonable time' limitation on the Attorney General's authority to detain aliens post-removal order. The INS's interpretation, which would allow for potentially lifelong detention, raises a substantial constitutional question under the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause for aliens who have entered the U.S. and are therefore entitled to its protections. This case is distinguishable from precedents like Shaughnessy v. Mezei, which involved 'excludable' aliens who are treated under the 'entry fiction' as never having entered the country and thus have fewer constitutional rights. Ma, having been admitted as a lawful permanent resident, possesses greater constitutional protections. Therefore, where there is no reasonable likelihood that an alien can be removed in the reasonably foreseeable future, continued detention beyond the 90-day statutory removal period is not authorized, and the alien must be released under supervision.
Analysis:
This decision significantly curbed the executive branch's power to detain removable aliens indefinitely, particularly those from countries without repatriation agreements. By applying the doctrine of constitutional avoidance, the Ninth Circuit established that statutory silence on the duration of detention does not grant limitless authority. This ruling reinforced the critical legal distinction between the constitutional rights of resident aliens (who have 'entered' the U.S.) and excludable aliens, creating a protective standard for the former. The case created a circuit split at the time and highlighted a major statutory and humanitarian issue, ultimately leading to Supreme Court review in the similar case of Zadvydas v. Davis, which largely affirmed this statutory interpretation.
