Calcano-Martinez v. Immigration & Naturalization Service

2001-06-25

Headline: Lawful permanent residents convicted of aggravated felonies cannot get direct appellate review; the Court held they must pursue habeas corpus challenges in federal district courts instead.

Holding: The Court held that because Congress barred appeals of removal orders for people convicted of aggravated felonies, these lawful permanent residents cannot obtain direct review in the courts of appeals and must seek habeas relief in district court.

Real World Impact:

Blocks direct appeals for lawful permanent residents convicted of aggravated felonies.
Requires these individuals to file habeas corpus petitions in federal district courts.
Leaves some questions about appellate review of factual or major constitutional challenges.

Topics: immigration appeals, deportation and removal, habeas corpus, criminal convictions

Summary

Background

Deboris Calcano-Martinez, Sergio Madrid, and Fazila Khan are lawful permanent residents who conceded they were removable because of past drug convictions that qualify as aggravated felonies. Each sought to challenge the Board of Immigration Appeals’ denial of a discretionary waiver by filing a petition for direct review in the court of appeals and a habeas corpus petition in federal district court. The Second Circuit dismissed the appeals for lack of jurisdiction but allowed them to pursue district-court habeas. The Supreme Court granted review to decide where such claims may be heard.

Reasoning

The Court framed the core question as whether people in the petitioners’ position can get relief through direct appeals or must seek habeas review in district court. The Court concluded that the 1996 immigration law (IIRIRA) contains a provision that clearly removes the courts of appeals’ power to review final removal orders for those convicted of certain crimes, including aggravated felonies. At the same time, the Court found Congress did not clearly say that district courts could not hear habeas petitions, so district court habeas proceedings remain available. The Court therefore affirmed the Second Circuit’s dismissal of the direct appeals and left the petitioners free to proceed in district court.

Real world impact

The ruling means lawful permanent residents with aggravated-felony convictions generally cannot obtain direct appellate review of removal orders and instead must pursue habeas corpus challenges in federal district courts. The decision focuses on which court hears the case rather than on the underlying merit of any waiver requests, so it does not decide whether petitioners win relief on their claims. The opinion also notes some residual uncertainties, including that the Government concedes appeals courts may review certain factual findings and major constitutional questions.

Dissents or concurrances

Justices O’Connor and Scalia (joined by the Chief Justice and Justice Thomas) disagreed, arguing the appeals should be dismissed differently and that jurisdictional bars should prevent relitigation in district court.