Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

attorneyparoledue processinternational law
attorneyparoledue processinternational lawnaturalization

Related Cases

Grant v. Department of Homeland Security
View Case »
McGuire v. Nielsen
View Case »
Loa-Herrera v. Trominski
View Case »
McKesson Corp v. Islamic Republic of Iran
View Case »
Haddad v. Ashcroft
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Mariel Cubans, In re;

Facts

The petitioners were Mariel Cubans detained at the United States Penitentiary, Lewisburg, Pennsylvania, after being granted administrative parole upon their arrival in the U.S. They committed various crimes while on parole and were subsequently incarcerated. Following their prison terms, they were placed in administrative detention by the INS. The court noted that an agreement was reached between the U.S. and Cuba for the repatriation of certain Mariel Cubans, but it was unclear if any of the petitioners were included in that agreement.

Petitioners were Mariel Cubans detained in United States Penitentiary, Lewisburg, Pennsylvania. Petitioners asserted that their present incarceration was punishment in violation ofU.S. Const. amend. VandVI; their immigration parole was revoked and their reparole was denied without due process of law; inordinate and prolonged detention was not authorized by Congress; and ongoing detention violated controlling international law.

Issue

Whether the detention of the petitioners violated their constitutional rights and international law, and whether it was authorized by Congress.

Whether the detention of the petitioners violated their constitutional rights and international law, and whether it was authorized by Congress.

Rule

The court applied the principle that an excludable alien may be paroled into the U.S. but can still be subjected to exclusion proceedings, and that the Attorney General has broad discretion to grant or deny parole.

This Circuit in Moret v. Karn, 746 F.2d 989 (3d Cir. 1984) , recognized that the Attorney General has broad discretion to grant or deny parole.

Analysis

The court determined that the petitioners had received the due process required under the Cuban Review Plan, which mandates annual reviews for parole eligibility. The court found that the detention was not punitive but administrative, and that the Attorney General acted within the law in denying parole based on the petitioners' criminal backgrounds.

The court found that petitioners had received all the due process to which they were entitled. Their continued detention was both authorized by Congress and customary international law was not controlling in the case.

Conclusion

The court dismissed the case, concluding that the petitioners had received all the due process to which they were entitled and that their continued detention was lawful.

The court dismissed the cases after finding that petitioners had received all the due process to which they were entitled.

Who won?

The government prevailed in the case as the court found that the petitioners' detention was lawful and did not violate their rights.

The court found that the actions of the Immigration and Naturalization Service and Attorney General were in accordance with law, the court could not conclude that they either abused their discretion or acted in a arbitrary and capricious manner.

You must be