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

appealhabeas corpusparoleliens
appealhabeas corpusparoleliens

Related Cases

Jean, Matter of
View Case »
W-Y-C- & H-O-B-, Matter of
View Case »
United States v. Rubio-Gonzalez
View Case »
Terrado v. Moyer
View Case »
Ali v. Barlow
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Marquez v. Immigration and Naturalization Service

Facts

Domingo Arango Marquez is a Mariel Cuban refugee who has been in INS custody since August 16, 2000, due to Cuba's refusal to accept his repatriation. After initially being paroled into the United States in 1980, Marquez embarked on a criminal career, leading to his detention by the INS following multiple convictions. His habeas corpus petition was denied by the district court, which held that excludable aliens could be detained indefinitely, but Marquez appealed this decision.

Domingo Arango Marquez is a Mariel Cuban refugee who has been in INS custody since August 16, 2000, due to Cuba's refusal to accept his repatriation. After initially being paroled into the United States in 1980, Marquez embarked on a criminal career, leading to his detention by the INS following multiple convictions. His habeas corpus petition was denied by the district court, which held that excludable aliens could be detained indefinitely, but Marquez appealed this decision.

Issue

Whether the indefinite detention of Marquez, an inadmissible alien, violates his constitutional rights and whether he is entitled to a determination of the foreseeability of his removal.

Whether the indefinite detention of Marquez, an inadmissible alien, violates his constitutional rights and whether he is entitled to a determination of the foreseeability of his removal.

Rule

The court applied the principles established in Zadvydas v. Davis, which limits the detention of aliens to a presumptively reasonable period of six months post-removal, and extended this to inadmissible aliens under 8 U.S.C.S. 1231.

The court applied the principles established in Zadvydas v. Davis, which limits the detention of aliens to a presumptively reasonable period of six months post-removal, and extended this to inadmissible aliens under 8 U.S.C.S. 1231.

Analysis

The court found that the district court's reasoning, which held that excludable aliens could be detained indefinitely, was incorrect in light of the Supreme Court's ruling in Zadvydas and the Ninth Circuit's decision in Lin Guo Xi. The court emphasized that Marquez, as an inadmissible alien, is entitled to the same reasonable time limitations as deportable aliens, and thus his indefinite detention was not authorized.

The court found that the district court's reasoning, which held that excludable aliens could be detained indefinitely, was incorrect in light of the Supreme Court's ruling in Zadvydas and the Ninth Circuit's decision in Lin Guo Xi. The court emphasized that Marquez, as an inadmissible alien, is entitled to the same reasonable time limitations as deportable aliens, and thus his indefinite detention was not authorized.

Conclusion

The judgment denying Marquez's petition for a writ of habeas corpus was reversed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings, including the appointment of counsel.

The judgment denying Marquez's petition for a writ of habeas corpus was reversed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings, including the appointment of counsel.

Who won?

Marquez prevailed in the case because the court found that his indefinite detention was not justified under current legal standards, and he was entitled to a determination regarding the foreseeability of his removal.

Marquez prevailed in the case because the court found that his indefinite detention was not justified under current legal standards, and he was entitled to a determination regarding the foreseeability of his removal.

You must be