v. Smith
Decision Date | 01 February 1985 |
Docket Number | No. A-582,GARCIA-MIR,A-582 |
Citation | 469 U.S. 1311,105 S.Ct. 948,83 L.Ed.2d 901 |
Parties | Moises, et al., Applicants, v. William French SMITH, Attorney General of the United States, et al |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Applicants are members of a class of Cuban nationals who unlawfully entered the United States as part of the Mariel boatlift in 1980. They have been detained in the federal penitentiary in Atlanta pending Cuba's willingness to accept their return, and have had final orders of exclusion entered against them by the Board of Immigration Appeals. Matter of Leon-Orosco and Rodriguez-Colas, Interim Decision 2974 (1983). The instant proceedings are the most recent stage of litigation which has lasted for more than four years. Attorneys for the class have sought to reopen the administrative exclusion hearings of two individual class members on the theory that they belong to a "social group," defined as the Mariel boatlift participants, whose members allegedly would be subject to persecution if returned to Cuba, thus making them eligible for consideration for asylum. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(a)(42)(A), 1158. The parties stipulated that the decisions on the two individual motions to reopen "will be binding on all asylum/withholding of deportation issues relating to membership in the Freedom Flotilla as a social group," but they also expressly provided that the decisions would have no binding effect over the determinations of other class members "with respect to statutory and regulatory exceptions to asylum/withholding eligibility."
The Board of Immigration Appeals denied the two test motions to reopen on the ground that the aliens had not presented a prima facie case of persecution. The District Court ruled on October 15, 1984, that the aliens had presented sufficient evidence of a likelihood of persecution and, therefore, that the Board had abused its discretion in failing to reopen the test cases. Fernandez-Roque v. Smith, 599 F.Supp. 1103 (1984). The District Court remanded the test cases to the Board and set aside all outstanding orders of exclusion.
Meanwhile, the United States and Cuba on December 14, 1984, concluded an agreement on immigration matters in which Cuba consented to the return of 2,746 named boatlift participants in exchange for the resumption of this country's normal processing of preference immigration visas for Cuban nationals. The agreement limits the number of boatlift participants that may be returned to 100 per month, except that, if fewer than 100 are returned in a calendar month, the short-fall may be made up in subsequent months up to a total of 150 returnees per month. The Cuban Government apparently has indicated that it will not mistreat anyone returned under the agreement. Respondents contend that the United States will be severely prejudiced by any delay in carrying out this agreement because Cuba may refuse at some future time to complete its end of the bargain after it has received the domestic political benefits of the eased immigration to this country.
Respondents appealed the District Court's October 15, 1984, order and sought a stay pending appeal, which was denied by the District Court. The Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit granted a partial stay on January 16, 1985, which it modified by order of ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Garcia-Mir v. Smith
...On February 1, 1985 the Supreme Court denied plaintiffs' application to vacate this court's stay. Garcia-Mir v. Smith, --- U.S. ----, ---- - ----, 105 S.Ct. 948, 949-950, 83 L.Ed.2d 901 (1985).3 In their proposed amendments, the plaintiffs also alleged: (1) that they were "refugees" as that......
-
Carballo v Luttrell
...immigration visas for Cuban nationals as had occurred in this country prior to the Mariel boatlift. Garcia-Mir v. Smith, 469 U.S. 1311, 1312 (1985) (Rehnquist, Circuit Justice). This list comprises individuals whom the INS identified as possessing serious criminal backgrounds or mental infi......
-
Planned Parenthood of Greater Tex. Surgical Health Servs. v. Abbott
...is inconsistent with the "great deference" we owe to the Court of Appeals' decision, Garcia–Mir v. Smith, 469 U.S. 1311, 1313, 105 S.Ct. 948, 83 L.Ed.2d 901 (1985) (Rehnquist, J., in chambers)—deference that "is especially warranted when," as here, "that court is proceeding to adjudication ......
-
Crespo-Gomez v. Richard, CRESPO-GOME
...refusing to vacate a stay granted by this court in another case involving the class of Mariel Cubans. Garcia-Mir v. Smith, --- U.S. ----, 105 S.Ct. 948, 83 L.Ed.2d 901 (1985). In Garcia-Mir, this court's stay directed the government not to return to Cuba any class members claiming eligibili......