Landon v. Plasencia

459 U.S. 21 (1982)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

P, a citizen of El Salvador, entered the United States as a permanent resident alien in March 1970. She established a home in Los Angeles with her husband, a United States citizen, and their minor children. On June 27, 1975, P and her husband traveled to Tijuana, Mexico. They met with several Mexican and Salvadoran nationals and made arrangements to assist their illegal entry into the United States. P agreed to transport the aliens to Los Angeles and furnished some of the aliens with alien registration receipt cards that belonged to her children. When P and her husband attempted to cross the international border on June 29, 1975, an INS officer at the port of entry found six nonresident aliens in P's car. The INS detained P for further inquiry pursuant to § 235(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (Act). INS charged her under § 212(a)(31), 8 U. S. C. § 1182(a)(31), which provides for the exclusion of any alien seeking admission 'who at any time shall have, knowingly and for gain, encouraged, induced, assisted, abetted, or aided any other alien to enter or to try to enter the United States in violation of law.' D gave P notice that it would hold an exclusion hearing at 11 a. m. on June 30, 1975. An Immigration Law Judge found 'clear, convincing and unequivocal' evidence that P did 'knowingly and for gain encourage, induce, assist, abet, or aid nonresident aliens' to enter or try to enter the United States in violation of the law. He also found that P's trip to Mexico was a 'meaningful departure' from the United States and that her return to this country was, therefore, an 'entry' within the meaning of § 101(a)(13), 8 U. S. C. § 1101(a)(13). The judge ordered her 'excluded and deported.' The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissed her administrative appeal and denied her motion to reopen the proceeding. P filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus seeking release from the exclusion and deportation order. The Magistrate initially found that 'a meaningful departure did not occur . . . and that therefore P is entitled to a deportation hearing.' It found that D could relitigate the question of 'entry' at the deportation hearing. The District Court adopted the Magistrate's final report and recommendation and vacated the decision of the BIA, instructing the INS to proceed against P, if at all, only in deportation proceedings. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed. D appealed.