Landon v. Plasencia
459 U.S. 21 (1982)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Immigration and Nationality Act authorizes the government to use exclusion proceedings to determine the admissibility of a returning lawful permanent resident. However, a returning permanent resident is entitled to constitutional due process protections in such a hearing.
Facts:
- Maria Antonieta Plasencia, a citizen of El Salvador, became a lawful permanent resident of the United States in March 1970 and established a home in Los Angeles with her U.S. citizen husband and children.
- On June 27, 1975, Plasencia and her husband traveled to Tijuana, Mexico for a brief stay.
- While in Mexico, they arranged to help several Mexican and Salvadoran nationals enter the United States illegally.
- Plasencia agreed to transport the aliens into the U.S. and provided some of them with her children's alien registration receipt cards.
- On the evening of June 29, 1975, when Plasencia and her husband attempted to drive back into the U.S., an INS officer discovered six nonresident aliens concealed in their car.
Procedural Posture:
- In an exclusion hearing, an Immigration Law Judge found Maria Antonieta Plasencia excludable and ordered her deported.
- The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissed her administrative appeal.
- Plasencia filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the U.S. District Court, which vacated the BIA decision and ruled that the INS must use deportation proceedings.
- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the District Court's judgment, holding that Plasencia was entitled to a deportation hearing.
- The INS petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, which was granted.
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 the Immigration and Nationality Act authorize the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) to determine the admissibility of a returning permanent resident alien in an exclusion hearing rather than a deportation hearing?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice O’Connor
Yes. The Immigration and Nationality Act authorizes the INS to determine a returning permanent resident alien's admissibility in an exclusion hearing. The plain language and legislative history of the Act establish that an exclusion hearing is the 'sole and exclusive procedure for determining admissibility' for any person seeking to enter the United States, including a returning resident. The Court rejected the argument that the question of whether an alien is making an 'entry' must be decided in a more protective deportation hearing, clarifying that prior cases like Rosenberg v. Fleuti only defined 'entry' and did not mandate a specific forum for its determination. However, while the statute permits an exclusion hearing, a returning permanent resident does not lose their constitutional rights at the border. Citing Kwong Hai Chew v. Colding, the Court affirmed that a returning resident is entitled to due process. The case was remanded for the lower court to determine whether the specific procedures used—such as the short notice and waiver of counsel—were constitutionally sufficient under the balancing test established in Mathews v. Eldridge.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Justice Marshall
Yes. Justice Marshall agreed with the majority that the Immigration and Nationality Act permitted the INS to use an exclusion proceeding for a returning permanent resident. However, he dissented from the majority's decision to remand the due process question, arguing the Court should have decided it immediately. He asserted that the process accorded to Plasencia was clearly insufficient, as she received less than a day's notice of the charges and the hearing, which was not provided in her native language until the hearing began. This lack of timely and adequate notice deprived her of any meaningful opportunity to retain counsel, marshal facts, and present a defense, thus violating the minimum requirements of the Due Process Clause.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the government's authority to use the more summary exclusion proceedings for returning lawful permanent residents, rather than being required to use the more protective deportation proceedings. Critically, however, the Court holds that this statutory power is constrained by the Constitution. By affirming that returning residents retain due process rights, the Court creates a hybrid status where these individuals face a less favorable procedure but are still shielded by constitutional guarantees of fairness. This ruling opened the door for future litigation focused on defining the specific procedural safeguards (e.g., notice, counsel, burden of proof) that due process requires in this unique context.
Unlock the full brief for Landon v. Plasencia