Calcano-Martinez v. Immigration & Naturalization Service

Decision Date25 June 2001
Docket Number001011
Citation121 S.Ct. 2268,150 L.Ed.2d 392,533 U.S. 348
CourtU.S. Supreme Court
PartiesDEBORIS, et al., PETITIONERS v. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICESUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Syllabus

Petitioners are lawful permanent United States residents subject to administratively final removal orders because they were convicted of aggravated felonies. Each filed a petition for review in the Second Circuit pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1) and a habeas corpus petition in the District Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in order to challenge the Board of Immigration Appeals' determination that, as a matter of law, they were ineligible to apply for a discretionary waiver of deportation under former §212(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. The Second Circuit dismissed their petitions for lack of jurisdiction, holding that they could nevertheless pursue their claims in a §2241 action in district court.

Held: The Second Circuit lacked jurisdiction to hear the petitions for direct review, but petitioners can proceed with their habeas petitions if they wish to obtain relief. The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA) expressly precludes courts of appeals from exercising jurisdiction to review a final removal order against an alien removable by reason of a conviction for, inter alia, an aggravated felony. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C). This plain language explicitly strips the courts of appeals of the ability to hear petitioners' claims on direct review. However, because Congress has not spoken with sufficient clarity to strip the district courts of jurisdiction to hear habeas petitions raising identical claims, see INS v. St. Cyr, ante, at ___, petitioners may pursue their claims in a §2241 action. Pp. 2 4.232 F.3d 328, affirmed.

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

Stevens, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer, JJ., joined.

Justice Stevens delivered the opinion of the Court.

Deboris Calcano-Martinez, Sergio Madrid, and Fazila Khan are all lawful permanent residents of the United States subject to administratively final orders of removal. They conceded that they are deportable based upon their past criminal convictions, but each filed both a petition for review in the Second Circuit pursuant to 8 U.S. C. §1252(a)(1) (1994 ed., Supp. V) and a habeas corpus petition in the District Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in order to challenge the Board of Immigration Appeals' determination that, as a matter of law, petitioners were ineligible to apply for a discretionary waiver of deportation under former §212(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 66 Stat. 182, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(c) (1994 ed.). Their petitions for review were consolidated in the Court of Appeals, which subsequently dismissed the petitions for lack of jurisdiction, holding that petitioners could nevertheless pursue their constitutional and statutory claims in a district court habeas action brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 232 F.3d 328 (CA2 2000). We granted certiorari in this case, 531 U.S. 1108 (2001), and in INS v. St. Cyr, No. 00 767, 531 U.S. 1107 (2001), in order to comprehensively consider whether aliens in the petitioners' position may seek relief in the Court of Appeals (pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1)); in the district court (pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241); or not at all. For the reasons stated below and in our opinion in INS v. St. Cyr, ante, p.__, we agree with the Court of Appeals that it lacks jurisdiction to hear the petitions for direct review at issue in this case and that petitioners must, therefore, proceed with their petitions for habeas corpus if they wish to obtain relief.

As part of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA), 110 Stat. 3009 546, Congress adopted new provisions governing the judicial review of immigration orders. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (1994 ed., Supp. V) (codifying these procedures). Like the prior statute, the new provision vests the courts of appeals with the authority to consider petitions challenging "final orders" commanding the "removal" of aliens from the United States. §1252(a)(1).1 However, unlike the previous provisions, the new statute expressly precludes the courts of appeals from exercising "jurisdiction to review any final order of removal against any alien who is removable by reason of " a conviction for certain criminal offenses, including any aggravated felony. §1252(a)(2)(C).2

As petitioners in this case were convicted of "aggravated felonies" within the meaning of the relevant statutes,3 the plain language of §1252(a)(2)(C) fairly explicitly strips the courts of appeals of jurisdiction to hear their claims on petitions for direct review. Without much discussion, the Court of Appeals so held. 232 F.3d, at 342 343.

Before this Court, petitioners primarily argue that constitutional considerations and background principles of statutory interpretation require that they be afforded some forum for the adjudication of the merits of their claims. They devote the bulk of their briefs to arguing that the Court of Appeals motivated by these concerns properly interpreted IIRIRA's jurisdiction-stripping provision not to preclude aliens such as petitioners from pursuing habeas relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Brief for Petitioners 12 42, 44 49. In the alternative, they argue that we might construe the same provisions as stripping jurisdiction from the courts of appeals over only some matters, leaving in place their jurisdiction to directly review petitions raising claims previously cognizable under §2241. Id., at 42 44.

We agree with petitioners that leaving aliens without a forum for adjudicating claims such as those raised in this case would raise serious constitutional questions. We also agree with petitioners and the Court of Appeals that these concerns can best be alleviated by construing the jurisdiction-stripping provisions of that statute not to preclude aliens such as petitioners from...

To continue reading

Request your trial
144 cases
  • El Badrawi v. Department of Homeland Sec.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut
    • September 22, 2008
    ...removal proceedings. See id. at 313-14, 121 S.Ct. 2271; Calcano Martinez, 232 F.3d 328, 339-40 (2d Cir.2000), aff'd 533 U.S. 348, 121 S.Ct. 2268, 150 L.Ed.2d 392 (2001); Aguilar v. United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Div. of the Dept. of Homeland Sec., 510 F.3d 1, 11 (1 st Cir......
  • Cadet v. Bulger, No. 03-14565.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit
    • July 20, 2004
    ...CAT claims. Before addressing the merits of Cadet's claims, we discuss certain precedent dictating this conclusion. In St. Cyr, 533 U.S. at 314, 121 S.Ct. at 2287, the United States Supreme Court held that the jurisdiction-stripping provisions of AEDPA and IIRIRA did not deprive federal cou......
  • Ameur v. Gates
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit
    • July 16, 2014
    ...may arise if a person is left without a forum for adjudicating his constitutional claims. See, e.g., Calcano–Martinez v. INS, 533 U.S. 348, 351, 121 S.Ct. 2268, 150 L.Ed.2d 392 (2001). To resolve this case, however, we need not decide whether Congress can entirely foreclose constitutional c......
  • Padilla v. Ky., No. 08-651
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • March 31, 2010
    ... ... Pp. 2-18.         (a) Changes to immigration law have dramatically raised the stakes ... of a noncitizen's criminal ... "removal" rather than "deportation." See Calcano-Martinez v. INS , ... 533 U.S. 348, 350, n. 1, 121 S. Ct. 2268, 150 L. Ed ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results
3 books & journal articles
  • Survey of 2002-2003 Developments in International Law in Connecticut
    • United States
    • Connecticut Bar Association Connecticut Bar Journal No. 77, 2003
    • Invalid date
    ...nor the text makes any mention of 28 U.S.C. § 2241. INS v. St. Cyr, 533 U.S. 289, 308-309 (2001). 110 Id.; also Calcano-Martinez v. INS, 533 U.S. 348 (2001). 111 See Murray v. Charming Betsy, 6 U.S. (2 Cranch) 64, 118 (1804). 112 St. Cyr, 533 U.S. at 300. Calcano-Martinez, 533 U.S. at 351, ......
  • Article Title: Ins v. St. Cyr:1 the Supreme Court and Draconian Congressional Criminal-immigration Laws
    • United States
    • Utah State Bar Utah Bar Journal No. 2001-12, December 2001
    • Invalid date
    ...to review whether the person is deportable on the grounds specified by the INS). It appears that the Supreme Court in Calcano-Martinez, 121 S.Ct. 2268, 2001 U.S. Lexis settles the score, at least with respect to reviewability of criminal aliens' substantive claims, by holding that Congress ......
  • The Plight of International Adoptees Exclusion in Law Causes Thousands of International Adoptees to Face Deportation
    • United States
    • Full Court Press AILA Law Journal No. 3-2, October 2021
    • Invalid date
    ...While "deportation proceedings" has been replaced with the term "removal proceedings" in current law, see Calcano-Martinez v. I.N.S., 533 U.S. 348, 350 n.1 (2001), the INA refers to grounds of deportation for those admitted to the United States who are to be removed. See INA § 237. Most int......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT