blackman hinds v. holder, 1st cir. (2015)

7/26/2019 Blackman Hinds v. Holder, 1st Cir. (2015)

1/24

United States Court of AppealsFor the First Circuit

No. 13- 2129

ROGELI O BLACKMAN HI NDS,

Pet i t i oner ,

v.

LORETTA E. LYNCH, At t orney General of t he Uni t ed St at es, *

Respondent .

PETI TI ON FOR REVI EW OF AN ORDER OF THEBOARD OF I MMI GRATI ON APPEALS

Bef ore

Howard, Chi ef J udge,Thompson, Ci r cui t J udge,

and Lapl ant e, ** Di str i ct J udge.

D. Zachary Hudson, wi t h whom Bancr of t PLLC was on br i ef , f orpet i t i oner .

Dr or Ladi n, J udy Rabi novi t z, ACLU Foundat i on I mmi gr ant s'Ri ght s Pr oj ect , Mat t hew R. Segal , and ACLU Foundat i on of

Massachuset t s on br i ef f or Amer i can Ci vi l Li ber t i es Uni onFoundat i on I mmi gr ant s' Ri ght s Pr oj ect and The Amer i can Ci vi l

* Pur suant t o Fed. R. App. P. 43( c) ( 2) , At t or ney Gener alLor et t a E. Lynch has been subst i t ut ed f or f or mer At t or ney Gener alEr i c H. Hol der , J r . as r espondent .

** Of t he Di st r i ct of New Hampshi r e, si t t i ng by desi gnat i on.


2/24

Li ber t i es Uni on of Massachuset t s, ami ci cur i ae.Bet h Wer l i n and Amer i can I mmi gr at i on Counci l on br i ef f or

Amer i can I mmi grat i on Counsel and t he Post - Depor t at i on Human Ri ght sPr oj ect, ami ci cur i ae.

Sar ah H. Paol et t i , Di epi r i ye A. Anga, Mar i am Khokhar , LawSchool Repr esent at i ves and Tr ansnat i onal Legal Cl i ni c, Uni ver si t yof Pennsyl vani a Law School on br i ef f or I nt er nat i onal and HumanRi ght s Law Pr of essor s and Cl i ni ci ans, ami ci cur i ae.

Shayana Kadi dal and Suni t a Pat el on br i ef f or The Cent er f orConst i t ut i onal Ri ght s, ami cus cur i ae.

Ai mee J . Car mi chael , Tr i al At t or ney, Of f i ce of I mmi gr at i onLi t i gat i on, Uni t ed St at es Depar t ment of J ust i ce, wi t h whom St uar tF. Del er y, Assi st ant At t or ney Gener al , Ci vi l Di vi si on and J enni f erL. Li ght body, Seni or Li t i gat i on Counsel , Of f i ce of I mmi gr at i onLi t i gat i on, f or r espondent .

J une 24, 2015


3/24

- 3 -

HOWARD, Chief Judge. I n t hi s case, we must det er mi ne

whet her t he Supr eme Cour t ' s descr i pt i on of depor t at i on i n Padi l l a

v. Kent ucky as " an i nt egr al par t . . . of t he penal t y that may be

i mposed on nonci t i zen def endant s who pl ead gui l t y t o speci f i ed

cr i mes, " 559 U. S. 356, 364 ( 2010) , has al t er ed t he l ongst andi ng

not i on t hat r emoval i s non- puni t i ve and t hus does not i mpl i cat e

t he Ei ght h Amendment ' s pr ohi bi t i on on cr uel and unusual puni shment

or r el at ed const i t ut i onal pr ot ecti ons. Pet i t i oner Rogel i o

Bl ackman Hi nds was convi ct ed of a f el ony r equi r i ng hi s r emoval ,

and t he Boar d of I mmi gr at i on Appeal s ( "BI A" ) af f i r med an order

t hat he be r emoved. Bl ackman chal l enges t he BI A' s deci si on by

ar gui ng t hat , because Padi l l a descr i bed depor t at i on as a

"penal t y, " hi s r emoval vi ol at es t he Const i t ut i on unl ess a cour t

conduct s an i ndi vi dual i zed assessment t o det er mi ne whet her hi s

or der of r emoval i s a pr opor t i onal puni shment r el at i ve t o hi s

under l yi ng cr i mi nal convi ct i on. As expl ai ned bel ow, we concl ude

t hat Padi l l a has not si gnal ed a br eak f r oml ong- set t l ed l aw. Thus,

we deny Bl ackman' s pet i t i on f or r evi ew.

I.

Bl ackman, a si xt y- year - ol d nat i ve of Panama, has been a

l awf ul per manent r esi dent of t he Uni t ed St at es si nce 1975. I n

Apr i l 1994, af t er a j ur y t r i al , he was convi ct ed by a f eder al cour t

i n New Yor k on t en dr ug and f i r ear m char ges. Bl ackman was

sent enced t o t went y- f i ve year s i mpr i sonment , but r ecei ved cr edi t


4/24

- 4 -

f or good conduct dur i ng hi s i ncar cer at i on and was r el eased i n 2012.

Upon hi s r el ease, t he Depar t ment of Homel and Secur i t y pr ompt l y

i ssued Bl ackman a Not i ce t o Appear i n removal pr oceedi ngs, chargi ng

hi m wi t h r emovabi l i t y as an al i en convi ct ed of an "aggr avat ed

f el ony" dr ug t r af f i cki ng cr i me. See 8 U. S. C. 1101( a) ( 43) ( B) ;

1227( a) ( 2) ( A) ( i i i ) .

Through counsel , Bl ackman admi t t ed t he al l egat i ons i n

t he Not i ce t o Appear , but never t hel ess deni ed r emovabi l i t y.

Seeki ng no asyl um, wi t hhol di ng, or ot her r el i ef f r om t he

I mmi gr at i on J udge ( " I J " ) , Bl ackman' s sol e gr ound f or denyi ng

r emovabi l i t y was t hat hi s r emoval woul d vi ol ate hi s Fi f t h Amendment

r i ght t o due pr ocess. Al t hough he di d not t est i f y, Bl ackman

submi t t ed an af f i davi t descr i bi ng var i ous f act or s t hat , he

cl ai med, shoul d wei gh i n hi s f avor and agai nst r emoval . For

exampl e, Bl ackman i ndi cat ed t hat he had ser ved honorabl y i n t he

Uni t ed St at es Mar i ne Cor ps f or f our year s - - enl i st i ng onl y a f ew

mont hs af t er hi s ar r i val i n t he Uni t ed St at es at age t went y. He

and hi s Uni t ed St at es- ci t i zen wi f e now have f our chi l dr en, and

Bl ackman asser t ed t hat hi s presence i n t he Uni t ed St at es i s

necessary t o hel p car e f or t hei r son, who was ser i ousl y i nj ur ed i n

a 1998 car acci dent . Fi nal l y, Bl ackman expr essed f ear t hat he

woul d be har med or ki l l ed by gang member s i f r emoved t o Panama.


5/24

- 5 -

He poi nt ed t o a pr i son beat i ng he had suf f er ed i n t he Uni t ed St at es

at t he i nst i gat i on of a co- def endant who now r esi des i n Panama. 1

The I J concl uded t hat he " l ack[ ed] aut hor i t y t o

consi der " Bl ackman' s const i t ut i onal chal l enges. See, e. g. , Mat t er

of C- , 20 I . & N. Dec. 529, 532 ( B. I . A. 1992) ( "[ I ] t i s set t l ed

t hat t he i mmi gr at i on j udge and [ t he BI A] l ack j ur i sdi ct i on t o r ul e

upon t he const i t ut i onal i t y of t he [ I mmi gr at i on and Nat i onal i t y]

Act and t he r egul at i ons. " ) . Because Bl ackman assert ed no other

subst ant i ve def ense t o r emoval , t he I J or der ed hi m r emoved. The

BI A af f i r med on t he same gr ound, and t hi s pet i t i on f ol l owed.

II.

Consi st ent wi t h hi s argument s bef or e t he I J and t he BI A,

Bl ackman does not cont est t hat he was convi ct ed of an aggr avat ed

f el ony t hat r ender s hi m r emovabl e. Nor has he sought any

subst ant i ve r el i ef f r omr emoval . Thus, i n or der f or us t o over t ur n

t he BI A' s deci si on, Bl ackman must show t hat hi s r emoval woul d be

unconst i t ut i onal . See 8 U. S. C. 1252( a) ( 2) ( D) .

The Const i t ut i on vest s Congr ess wi t h pl enar y power t o

set t he ci r cumst ances under whi ch nonci t i zens are per mi t t ed t o

ent er and r emai n i n t he Uni t ed St at es. See, e. g. , Fl emmi ng v.

1 Whi l e not determi nat i ve, we not e t hat Bl ackman r epeat edl yr ef er s to hi s "decades of l awf ul r esi dence i n t hi s count r y. " Ther ecor d r ef ut es thi s suggest i on. Bl ackman ar r i ved i n t he Uni t edSt at es i n 1975, was ar r est ed i n 1990 f or act i vi t i es t hat pr esumabl ypr e- dat ed hi s arr est dat e, and t hen served ei ght een year s i n pr i sonf ol l owi ng hi s 1994 convi ct i on.


6/24

- 6 -

Nest or , 363 U. S. 603, 616 ( 1960) . I n under t aki ng t hat

r esponsi bi l i t y, Congr ess has at t i mes r egul at ed by ref er ence t o an

al i en' s cri mi nal convi ct i ons. Pur suant t o st at ut e, al i ens who

commi t cer t ai n enumerat ed cr i mes ar e aut omat i cal l y removabl e.

What an al i en may see as a si mpl e cr i mi nal i nf r act i on may i n f act

pose ser i ous consequences f or her cont i nued pr esence i n the Uni t ed

St at es.

I n l i ght of t hi s r eal i t y, a maj or i t y of t he Supr eme Cour t

hel d i n Padi l l a t hat def ense counsel i n a cr i mi nal case pr ovi des

const i t ut i onal l y i nef f ect i ve assi st ance, and depr i ves a nonci t i zen

of t he Si xt h Amendment r i ght t o counsel , i f she f ai l s t o "i nf or m

her cl i ent whet her hi s pl ea car r i es a r i sk of depor t at i on. " 559

U. S. 356, 374 ( 2010) . Not i ng t hat " i mmi gr at i on r ef orms over t i me

have expanded t he cl ass of deport abl e of f enses and l i mi t ed t he

aut hor i t y of j udges t o al l evi at e the har sh consequences of

depor t at i on, " i d. at 360, t he Cour t f ound i t compel l i ng t hat

"depor t at i on i s an i nt egr al par t - - i ndeed somet i mes t he most

i mport ant part - - of t he penal t y that may be i mposed on nonci t i zen

def endant s who pl ead gui l t y t o speci f i ed cr i mes, " 2 i d. at 364

( emphasi s added) ( f oot not e omi t t ed) .

2 I nst ead of "deport at i on, " Congr ess now uses t he t er m"r emoval . " See Cal cano- Mar t i nez v. I . N. S. , 533 U. S. 348, 350 n. 1( 2001) . Because Padi l l a r ef er s t o deport at i on, and because manyof t he Supr eme Cour t ' s deci si ons i n t hi s arena pr e- dat e t he change,we use t he t er ms i nt er changeabl y t hr oughout t hi s opi ni on.


7/24

- 7 -

Padi l l a deal t onl y wi t h def ense counsel ' s obl i gat i on i n

a cr i mi nal case t o appr i se a nonci t i zen def endant of her pl ea' s

i mmi grat i on consequences. 3 But Bl ackman asser t s that t he Cour t ' s

descr i pt i on of depor t at i on as a "penal t y" has dr amat i c and f ar -

r eachi ng consequences and has necessar i l y al t er ed t he

admi ni st r at i ve r emoval pr ocess as wel l . Pl aci ng heavy r el i ance on

Padi l l a' s descr i pt i on of r emoval as a "penal t y, " Bl ackman ar gues

t hat t he Const i t ut i on mandat es t hat an I J , or t hi s cour t , assess

whet her t he st i ng of deport at i on and i t s accompanyi ng r eent r y bar

i s a pr opor t i onat e sanct i on f or hi s under l yi ng cr i mi nal

convi ct i on. When " t hose penal t i es woul d be di spr opor t i onat e under

t he ci r cumst ances of t he i ndi vi dual case, " Bl ackman cont ends t hat

"a l awf ul permanent r esi dent cannot be r emoved and bar r ed f r omr e-

ent r y. " I n essence, he cl ai ms t hat t he equi t i es of an al i en' s

par t i cul ar case mi ght r equi r e t hat an al i en r emai n i n t he Uni t ed

St at es, ei t her t empor ar i l y or per manent l y, despi t e Congr ess' s

st at utory mandat e that he be r emoved.

Bl ackman gr ounds t hi s argument i n t wo di st i nct , but ( at

l east i n t hese ci r cumst ances) r el at ed, const i t ut i onal pr ovi si ons:

3 Ci t i ng Padi l l a, Bl ackman makes a f l eet i ng r ef er ence t o the"possi bi l i t y" t hat hi s def ense counsel f ai l ed t o appr i se hi m oft he i mmi gr at i on consequences of hi s convi ct i on. Not onl y i s t hi sar gument undevel oped, but Padi l l a i s ent i r el y i napposi t e because,whi l e Bl ackman was convi ct ed af t er a j ur y t r i al , Padi l l a pl edgui l t y and hi s counsel ' s f ai l ur e t hus may have pr event ed Padi l l af r om maki ng an i nf or med deci si on whet her t o ent er t hat pl ea.


8/24

- 8 -

t he Ei ght h Amendment pr ohi bi t i on agai nst cr uel and unusual

puni shment , and the Fi f t h Amendment ' s due pr ocess cl ause.

Toget her , t hese t wo cl auses i mpose "subst ant i ve l i mi t s" on t he

gover nment ' s di scr et i on to i mpose "cr i mi nal penal t i es and puni t i ve

damages. " Cooper I ndus. , I nc. v. Leat her man Tool Gr p. , I nc. , 532

U. S. 424, 433 ( 2001) . I n ei t her case, t he government exceeds t hose

l i mi t s when i t i mposes a puni shment t hat i s " ' gr ossl y

di spr opor t i onal t o t he gr avi t y of def endant s' of f enses. ' " I d. at

434 ( el l i pses and al t er at i ons omi t t ed) ( quot i ng Uni t ed St at es v.

Baj akaj i an, 524 U. S. 321, 344 ( 1998) ) . 4

Yet , f eder al cour t s have l ong descr i bed r emoval or ders

as non- puni t i ve and, t her ef ore, not puni shment . As we expl ai n

bel ow, we r ej ect Bl ackman' s cont ent i on t hat Padi l l a her al ded a

dr amat i c change i n t hi s l ong- set t l ed vi ew.

4 Because t he Cour t has descr i bed t he t wo cl auses i n t andem,and t hei r l i mi t at i ons t oget her , see Cooper I ndus. , 532 U. S. at433- 34, our di scussi on of t he Ei ght h Amendment l argel y di sposes ofBl ackman' s due process argument . For t hat same r eason, andal t hough t he government cur i ousl y has not pr essed wai ver here, weexcuse Bl ackman' s f ai l ur e t o pr esent hi s Ei ght h Amendment cl ai mt ot he BI A. The "BI A i s wi t hout j ur i sdi ct i on t o adj udi cat e pur el yconst i t ut i onal i ssues, " Ravi ndr an v. I . N. S. , 976 F. 2d 754, 762( 1st Ci r . 1992) , and we have expl ai ned t hat some cl ai ms of

"depr i vat i on of const i t ut i onal r i ght s . . . ar e exempt f r om t h[ e]exhaust i on r equi r ement because t he BI A has no power t o addr esst hem, " Ber nal - Val l ej o v. I . N. S. , 195 F. 3d 56, 64 ( 1st Ci r . 1999) .Her e, because t he BI A expr essl y hel d t hat i t was wi t hout "aut hor i t yt o r ul e on t he const i t ut i onal i t y or val i di t y of t he Act or t her egul at i ons i t admi ni st er s, " we have no doubt t hat t he BI A woul dsi mi l ar l y have hel d t hat i t was unabl e t o consi der Bl ackman' sEi ght h Amendment at t ack. Thus, we wi l l r evi ew i t .


9/24

- 9 -

A. The Eighth Amendment

Bl ackman f i r st cont ends t hat t he Ei ght h Amendment , whi ch

pr ohi bi t s a puni shment "i f i t i s gr ossl y di spr opor t i onat e t o t he

under l yi ng of f ense, " Uni t ed St at es v. Lyons, 740 F. 3d 702, 731

( 1st Ci r . 2014) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks and ci t at i on omi t t ed) ,

demands a pr opor t i onal i t y i nqui r y i n t he r emoval cont ext .

Despi t e t he cl ose associ at i on bet ween cr i mi nal

convi ct i ons and r emoval , however , f or more t han a cent ur y f eder al

cour t s have descr i bed or der s of r emoval as non- puni t i ve. See,

e. g. , Fong Yue Ti ng v. Uni t ed St at es, 149 U. S. 698, 730 ( 1893) ;

see al so Reno v. Am. - Ar ab Ant i - Di scr i mi nat i on Comm. , 525 U. S. 471,

491 ( 1999) . When nonci t i zens ar e r emoved because t hey have

commi t t ed ser i ous st at e or f eder al of f enses, Congr ess has si mpl y

det er mi ned t hat t hose al i ens ar e among t he cat egor i es of

nonci t i zens who pose a par t i cul ar concer n t o t he nat i on' s wel f ar e.

Mahl er v. Eby, 264 U. S. 32, 39 ( 1924) . By r ef er enci ng a cr i me as

a j ust i f i cat i on f or r emovi ng an al i en, Congr ess does not seek to

puni sh an al i en ei t her gener al l y or f or her par t i cul ar f eder al or

st at e of f ense. I d. I nst ead, i f t he gover nment seeks t o r emove an

al i en because of " some act t he al i en has commi t t ed, " he "i s mer el y

bei ng hel d t o t he t erms under whi ch he was admi t t ed. " Am. - Ar ab

Ant i - Di scr i mi nat i on Comm. , 525 U. S. at 491. For t hi s reason, and

"however sever e i t s consequences, " t he Cour t has " consi st ent l y


10/24

- 10 -

cl assi f i ed" r emoval "as a ci vi l r at her t han a cr i mi nal pr ocedur e. "

Har i si ades v. Shaughnessy, 342 U. S. 580, 594 ( 1952) .

Moreover , al t hough the out come i s undeni abl y sever e f or

an al i en, because removal i s not i nt ended t o puni sh, f eder al cour t s

have consi st ent l y hel d t hat t he Ei ght h Amendment , t he ex post f acto

cl ause, t he doubl e j eopar dy cl ause, and ot her at t endant cr i mi nal

pr ot ect i ons do not appl y t o or der s of r emoval . Accor di ngl y - - and

agai n f or over a cent ur y - - t he descr i pt i on of depor t at i on as non-

puni t i ve has expr essl y f orecl osed Bl ackman' s ar gument .

Const i t ut i onal l y speaki ng, t her e i s a cat egor i cal di f f er ence

bet ween a ci vi l pr ohi bi t i on and a cr i mi nal puni shment . " I n t he

f ew cases wher e the Cour t has had occasi on t o conf r ont cl ai ms t hat

i mposi t i ons out si de t he cr i mi nal pr ocess const i t ut ed cr uel and

unusual puni shment , i t has had no di f f i cul t y f i ndi ng t he Ei ght h

Amendment i nappl i cabl e. " I ngr aham v. Wr i ght , 430 U. S. 651, 667-

68 ( 1977) . Thus, t he Cour t has concl uded t hat t he amendment i s

ent i r el y "i nappl i cabl e t o t he depor t at i on of al i ens" because

"depor t at i on i s not a puni shment f or cr i me. " I d. at 668 ( i nt er nal

quotat i on marks omi t t ed) ; see al so Fong Yue Ti ng, 149 U. S. at 730.

For si mi l ar r easons, t he ex post f act o cl ause does not appl y t o

depor t at i on pr oceedi ngs, and "l egi sl at i on ret r oact i vel y maki ng

past cr i mi nal act i vi t y a new basi s f or depor t at i on has been

r epeat edl y uphel d. " Uni t ed St at es v. Bodr e, 948 F. 2d 28, 32 ( 1st

Ci r . 1991) ; see al so Gal van v. Pr ess, 347 U. S. 522, 531 ( 1954)


11/24

- 11 -

( not i ng t hat t he ex post f acto cl ause' s i nappl i cabi l i t y t o

deport at i on "has been t he unbr oken r ul e" ) . And because i t i s non-

puni t i ve, we have al so r ej ect ed t he doubl e j eopar dy cl ause' s

appl i cat i on t o depor t at i on. 5 See Ar eval o v. Ashcr of t , 344 F. 3d 1,

10 n. 6 ( 1st Ci r . 2003) ; accor d De La Tej a v. Uni t ed St at es, 321

F. 3d 1357, 1364- 65 ( 11t h Ci r . 2003) .

The t hrust of Bl ackman' s ar gument i s t hat t he Cour t ' s

deci si on i n Padi l l a ef f ect ed a sea change i n t he way the Cour t

vi ews r emoval , upset t hi s unbr oken l i ne of aut hor i t y, and "cal l s

t he cont i nui ng val i di t y of t hose st at ement s i nt o quest i on. " I n

our assessment , however , Padi l l a has not al t er ed t hi s l aw.

To t he ext ent t hat Bl ackman seeks r ef uge i n t he Cour t ' s

mer e descr i pt i on of depor t at i on as a "penal t y, " t hat t er m does not

cal l i nt o quest i on t he cont i nui ng vi t al i t y of t he Cour t ' s pr ecedent

hol di ng t hat t he Ei ght h Amendment i s not i mpl i cat ed by a

nonci t i zen' s r emoval . The l abel , al one, has never been

5 The common i nqui r y acr oss t he Cour t ' s Ei ght h Amendment , expost f act o, and doubl e j eopar dy j ur i sprudence i s det er mi ni ngwhet her t he gover nment ' s sanct i on i s puni t i ve i n nat ur e andi nt ended t o ser ve as puni shment . See Kennedy v. Mendoza- Mar t i nez,372 U. S. 144, 168- 69 & nn. 22- 28 ( 1963) . When answer i ng t hat

quest i on, t he Cour t consi der s sever al f act or s whi ch ar e "desi gnedt o appl y i n var i ous const i t ut i onal cont ext s. " Smi t h v. Doe, 538U. S. 84, 97 ( 2003) . Accor di ngl y, wher e usef ul , we r el y on ex postf act o and doubl e j eopardy cases t o determi ne whether r emoval canbe cl assi f i ed as puni shment . The Supreme Cour t has done t he samewhen anal yzi ng t hese t ypes of cases. See, e. g. , i d. at 94 ( ci t i ngdoubl e j eopardy pr ecedent when deci di ng an ex post f act ochal l enge) .


12/24

- 12 -

di sposi t i ve. "[ B] ot h cr i mi nal and ci vi l sanct i ons may be l abel ed

' penal t i es' " so any r el i ance on t he descri pt or i s "unavai l i ng. "

Uni t ed St at es v. One Assor t ment of 89 Fi r ear ms, 465 U. S. 354, 364

n. 6 ( 1984) ( hol di ng t hat f or f ei t ur e pr oceedi ng was not bar r ed by

t he doubl e j eopardy cl ause because i t was not i nt ended as

puni shment ) . I n Padi l l a, i t sel f , t he Cour t was car ef ul t o

r ei t er at e t hat r emoval "i s not , i n a st r i ct sense, a cri mi nal

sanct i on. " 559 U. S. at 365. I ndeed, t o t he extent t hat semant i cs

ar e i nf or mat i ve, t he Cour t cont i nues t o r ef er t o r emoval mer el y as

a "consequence" of a convi ct i on, not as a penal t y f or cr i mi nal

conduct . See Mel l oul i v. Lynch, 135 S. Ct . 1980, 1986 ( 2015)

( descr i bi ng a convi ct i on as " t he t r i gger f or i mmi gr at i on

consequences" ) ; i d. at 1990 n. 11 ( r ef er r i ng t o r emoval and ot her

" i mmi gr at i on consequences t o cont r ol l ed- subst ance of f enses") .

I nst ead, al t hough he never f ul l y expl ai ns i t , Bl ackman' s

i mpl i ci t argument may be t hat t he Cour t si gnal ed t hat i t now vi ews

r emoval as a puni shment f or an under l yi ng cr i me f or whi ch a

nonci t i zen has been convi ct ed when i t descr i bed deport at i on as a

"penal t y. " We di sagr ee.

To be sure, Padi l l a accur at el y r ecogni zed t hat " [ o] ur

l aw has enmeshed cr i mi nal convi ct i ons and t he penal t y of

depor t at i on f or near l y a cent ur y, " maki ng " r emoval near l y an

aut omat i c r esul t f or a br oad cl ass of nonci t i zen of f ender s. " 559

U. S. at 365- 66. No one can di sput e t hat f act . Al t hough nar cot i cs


13/24

- 13 -

of f enses have "provi ded a di st i nct basi s f or depor t at i on as ear l y

as 1922, " Congr ess has i dent i f i ed an i ncr easi ngl y br oadeni ng set

of cr i mi nal convi ct i ons - - i ncl udi ng t he expansi ve cat egor y of

"aggr avat ed f el oni es" wi t hi n whi ch Bl ackman' s dr ug convi ct i ons

f al l - - t hat wi l l r ender a nonci t i zen r emovabl e. See gener al l y

i d. at 360. At t he same t i me, Congr ess has conver sel y nar r owed

t he ci r cumst ances i n whi ch cour t s and t he At t orney General may

gr ant di scret i onar y r el i ef f r om r emoval . I d. at 363- 64. Thus, as

Bl ackman' s case put s i nt o shar p r el i ef , r emoval i s a nat ur al and

i nescapabl e consequence t hat f ol l ows f r om many nonci t i zen

of f ender s' cr i mi nal convi cti ons.

Yet , t here i s a cr i t i cal di st i nct i on between r ecogni zi ng

t hat a par t i cul ar consequence mi ght f ol l ow - - near l y aut omat i cal l y

- - f r om a cr i mi nal convi ct i on and cl assi f yi ng t hat consequence as

a sanct i on i nt ended t o puni sh a nonci t i zen f or t hat cr i mi nal

act i vi t y. I ndeed, t her e ar e a whol e host of consequences t hat

f l ow i ndel i bl y f r om a convi ct i on. The mer e f act t hat a cri mi nal

convi ct i on t r i gger s a consequence has never been t he oper at i ve

t est t o det er mi ne whet her t hat consequence i s puni t i ve or ot her wi se

i mpl i cates t he cr uel and unusual puni shment cl ause, t he doubl e

j eopar dy cl ause, t he ex post f act o cl ause, or any ot her

const i t ut i onal pr ot ect i on. See, e. g. , Smi t h v. Doe, 538 U. S. 84,

92, 105- 06 ( 2003) ( hol di ng t hat Al aska sex of f ender r egi st r at i on

l aw was non- puni t i ve and per mi ss i bl e under t he ex post f acto


14/24

- 14 -

cl ause) ; Hudson v. Uni t ed St ates, 522 U. S. 93, 104 ( 1997) ( not i ng

t hat occupat i onal debar ment has not "hi st or i cal l y been vi ewed as

puni shment , " and hol di ng t hat a l aw bar r i ng i ndi vi dual s who

vi ol at ed f eder al banki ng st at ut es f r om f ur t her par t i ci pat i on i n

t he banki ng i ndust r y di d not vi ol at e t he doubl e j eopar dy cl ause) ;

Hawker v. New Yor k, 170 U. S. 189 ( 1898) ( same r egardi ng r evocat i on

of medi cal l i cense) ; Si mmons v. Gal vi n, 575 F. 3d 24, 44- 45 ( 1st

Ci r . 2009) ( not i ng t hat "f el on di senf r anchi sement has hi st or i cal l y

not been r egar ded as puni t i ve" ) .

And even t he f act t hat t he Cour t or a l egi sl at i ve body

bel i eves t hat a consequence i s si gni f i cant enough t hat i t r equi r es

some not i ce t o the def endant , does not t r ansf orm t hat consequence

i nt o a cr i mi nal puni shment . The Cour t has def i ni t i vel y sai d so.

"The pol i cy t o al er t convi ct ed of f ender s t o t he ci vi l consequences

of t hei r cr i mi nal conduct does not r ender t he consequences

t hemsel ves puni t i ve. " Smi t h, 538 U. S. at 95- 96. Thus, t he mer e

f act t hat t he Cour t i n Padi l l a hel d t hat a cr i mi nal def endant must

be adequat el y advi sed about t he i mmi gr at i on consequences of a

gui l t y pl ea does not si mi l ar l y i ndi cat e t hat t he consequence i s a

puni t i ve, cr i mi nal one t hat may not be i mposed unl ess i t i s a

pr opor t i onal sanct i on r el at i ve t o t he under l yi ng cri mi nal of f ense.

I f we had any doubt about Padi l l a' s i mpor t , t he Cour t ' s

subsequent deci si on i n Chai dez v. Uni t ed St at es woul d r esol ve i t .

Ther e, t he Cour t hel d t hat Padi l l a set a new r ul e wi t hout


15/24

- 15 -

r et r oact i ve ef f ect i n habeas pr oceedi ngs. 133 S. Ct . 1103, 1105

( 2013) . I t s anal ysi s makes cl ear t hat t he Cour t di d not i nt end t o

upset set t l ed l aw i n Padi l l a si mpl y by char act er i zi ng r emoval as

a "penal t y. " The Chai dez maj or i t y expl ai ned t hat Padi l l a had

"br each[ ed] t he pr evi ousl y chi nk- f r ee wal l bet ween [ t he] di r ect

and col l at er al consequences" of cr i mi nal convi ct i ons. I d. at 1110.

Bef or e Padi l l a, f eder al cour t s had "al most unani mousl y concl uded"

t hat t he Si xt h Amendment di d not r equi r e "at t or neys to i nf ormt hei r

cl i ent s of a convi ct i on' s col l at er al consequences, i ncl udi ng

depor t at i on. " I d. at 1109. But i n t he Cour t ' s under st andi ng,

Padi l l a br oke ent i r el y new gr ound when i t hel d t hat def ense

counsel ' s advi ce about a convi ct i on' s " non- cr i mi nal consequences, "

i ncl udi ng depor t at i on, wer e not whol l y beyond t he Si xth

Amendment ' s r each. 6 I d. at 1110. I t woul d be f ar f r om consi st ent

- - i ndeed, al t oget her i ncongr uous - - f or t he Cour t t o so heavi l y

emphasi ze how Padi l l a char t ed a new cour se by ext endi ng Si xt h

Amendment pr otect i ons t o a convi ct i on' s non- cr i mi nal consequences

whi l e al l t he whi l e i nt endi ng t o br i ng r emoval i nt o t he ambi t of

"puni shment , " wi t h al l of i t s at t endant saf eguar ds. I n shor t ,

6 Whi l e Chai dez appears t o descr i be depor t at i on consequencesas one of many "col l at er al consequences of a gui l t y pl ea, " 133 S.Ct . at 1109, t he Cour t was mor e equi vocal i n Padi l l a, not i ng onl yt hat " [ d] epor t at i on as a consequence of a cr i mi nal convi ct i on i s. . . uni quel y di f f i cul t t o cl assi f y as ei t her a di rect or acol l at er al consequence. " 559 U. S. at 366. Col l at er al or not ,however , i t i s cl ear t hat t he Cour t di d not i nt end t o change i t sconcept i on of a r emoval order as non- puni shment .


16/24

- 16 -

Bl ackman' s r eadi ng of Padi l l a i s i r r econci l abl e wi t h t he Cour t ' s

cont i nui ng descr i pt i on of r emoval as i nvol vi ng si mpl y a non-

cr i mi nal consequence of a gui l t y pl ea.

Cl ai mi ng t hat r emoval ' s ci vi l char act er i s i mmat er i al

f or appl i cat i on of t he Ei ght h Amendment , Bl ackman al so rel i es on

Aust i n v. Uni t ed St ates, wher e t he Cour t eschewed a cl ean l i ne

bet ween ci vi l and cr i mi nal pr oceedi ngs and hel d t hat t he Ei ght h

Amendment ' s Excessi ve Fi nes cl ause appl i ed t o ci vi l f or f ei t ur e.

509 U. S. 602, 607- 10 ( 1993) . For t wo di st i nct r easons any r el i ance

on Aust i n i s mi spl aced. Fi r st , and qui t e obvi ousl y, t he case has

no appl i cat i on because r emoval i s not t he i mposi t i on of a f i ne and

does not i mpl i cate t he Excessi ve Fi nes cl ause. Accord Zamora-

Mal l ar i v. Mukasey, 514 F. 3d 679, 695 ( 7t h Ci r . 2008) . The Cour t

made t hat l i mi t at i on cl ear i n a l at er case, wher e i t expl ai ned

t hat cl assi f yi ng ci vi l f or f ei t ur e as an excessi ve f i ne di d not ,

cat egor i cal l y, t ransform al l ci vi l f or f ei t ures i nt o cr i mi nal

sanct i ons. Uni t ed St at es v. Ur sery, 518 U. S. 267, 287 ( 1996) ( "The

hol di ng of Aust i n was l i mi t ed t o the Excessi ve Fi nes Cl ause of t he

Ei ght h Amendment , and we decl i ne t o i mpor t t he anal ysi s of Aust i n

i nt o our doubl e j eopar dy j ur i spr udence. ") . We si mi l ar l y t hi nk

t hat t he Cour t woul d be r et i cent t o i mpor t Aust i n' s anal ysi s i nt o

t he r emoval cont ext .

But even mor e t el l i ngl y - - al t hough t he Cour t woul d l at er

st at e t hat Aust i n di d not hol d t hat ci vi l f or f ei t ur es "ar e so


17/24

- 17 -

puni t i ve as t o const i t ut e puni shment f or t he pur poses of doubl e

j eopar dy, " Ur ser y, 518 U. S. at 287 - - t he cr ux of t he Cour t ' s

deci si on i n Aust i n was i t s r ecogni t i on t hat , at l east i n some

r espect s, " ' [ t ] he not i on of puni shment , as we commonl y under st and

i t , cut s across t he di vi si on bet ween t he ci vi l and cri mi nal l aw, ' "

509 U. S. at 610. The Cour t ' s anal ysi s hi nged on i t s vi ew t hat t he

ci vi l f or f ei t ur e st at ut e at i ssue t her e i mpl i cat ed t he Ei ght h

Amendment ' s Excessi ve Fi nes cl ause because t he st at ut e ser ved, at

l east i n some par t , as puni shment . I d. The Cour t concl uded t hat

bot h at t he f oundi ng and at t he t i me of i t s deci si on ci vi l

f or f ei t ur e ser ved "t o det er and t o puni sh. " I d. at 621- 22.

Because we have al r eady concl uded t hat Padi l l a does not i ndi cate

t hat t he Supreme Cour t has come t o vi ew r emoval as puni shment ,

Bl ackman' s r el i ance on Aust i n i s necessar i l y unavai l i ng.

At bot t om, despi t e Bl ackman' s heavy, undue rel i ance on

Padi l l a' s descr i pt i on of t he r emoval as a "penal t y" t hat f l ows

f r om a cr i mi nal convi ct i on, we do not t hi nk the Cour t i nt ended t o

si gnal an i mpl i ci t about - f ace f r om over a cent ur y of pr ecedent

t hr ough i t s passi ng semant i c choi ce of a par t i cul ar wor d. 7 Such a

7 Bl ackman r epeatedl y emphasi zes t he Cour t ' s descr i pt i on ofdepor t at i on as an "i nt egr al " or "i mpor t ant par t " of "t he penal t yt hat may be i mposed on nonci t i zen def endant s who pl ead gui l t y t ospeci f i ed cr i mes. " Padi l l a, 559 U. S. at 364. Yet , t he r emar k' scont ext and t he ami cus br i ef t hat t he Cour t ci t es t o suppor t i tmake cl ear t hat t he Cour t was r ef er enci ng the rel at i ve i mpor t ancet o t he al i en of par t i cul ar consequences t hat f l ow f r om a gui l t ypl ea, not deport at i on' s i mport ance t o t he gover nment as a


18/24

- 18 -

hol di ng "woul d have repr esent ed a maj or i nnovat i on, and a l ower

cour t shoul d be sl ow t o assume t hat t he Supreme Cour t has t aken a

si gni f i cant doct r i nal st ep by i ndi r ect i on or i nnuendo. " Connect U

LLC v. Zucker ber g, 522 F. 3d 82, 93 ( 1st Ci r . 2008) . To be sur e,

gi ven Congr ess' s i ncreasi ng l i st of cri mi nal pr ohi bi t i ons t hat

subj ect a nonci t i zen t o removal , i t may no l onger be accur at e t o

cl assi f y t he "coi nci dence of t he l ocal penal l aw wi t h t he pol i cy

of Congr ess" as mer el y "an acci dent . " Bugaj ewi t z v. Adams, 228

U. S. 585, 591 ( 1913) . We never t hel ess t hi nk t hat r emoval cont i nues

t o oper ate si mpl y as " a ref usal by t he gover nment t o harbor per sons

whomi t does not want , " i d. , not as a puni shment wi t hi n t he meani ng

of t he Const i t ut i on i nt ended t o acut el y sanct i on a nonci t i zen f or

hi s under l yi ng cr i mi nal convi ct i on.

Our hol di ng al i gns wi t h t he concl usi ons of t he ot her

ci r cui t s t hat have consi der ed t hi s quest i on si nce Padi l l a - -

al t hough t hose ci r cui t s r eached t hei r concl usi ons i n an

unpubl i shed opi ni on, see Ver as- Mar t i nez v. Hol der , No. 14- 428,

2015 WL 1381500, at *1 ( 2d Ci r . Mar . 27, 2015) , or wi t hout

r ef er enci ng Padi l l a, see Ei d v. Thompson, 740 F. 3d 118, 126 ( 3d

par t i cul ar l y compel l i ng sanct i on. See i d. ; see al so Br i ef f orAsi an Amer i can J ust i ce Cent er et al . as Ami ci Cur i ae Suppor t i ngPet i t i oner at 12, Padi l l a v. Kent ucky, 559 U. S. 356 ( 2010) ( No.08- 651) ( not i ng t hat "[ f ] or many nonci t i zens f aci ng cr i mi nalpr osecut i ons, t he most i mpor t ant consi der at i on i n deci di ng whet hert o accept a gui l t y pl ea i s t he ef f ect t hat t he deci si on wi l l haveon t hei r abi l i t y t o r emai n i n t he Uni t ed St at es wi t h t hei rf ami l i es" ( emphasi s added) ) .


19/24

- 19 -

Ci r . 2014) . Ot her ci r cui t s have l i kewi se concl uded, i n t he cour se

of r ej ect i ng ex post f act o ar gument s, t hat t he Supr eme Cour t ' s

deci si on i n Padi l l a di d not i ndi cat e t hat i t now vi ews r emoval as

puni shment . See Morr i s v. Hol der , 676 F. 3d 309, 317 ( 2d Ci r .

2012) ; Al var ado- Fonseca v. Hol der , 631 F. 3d 385, 391- 92 ( 7t h Ci r .

2011) .

We f ur t her not e what may, by now, be obvi ous. To accept

Bl ackman' s argument and hol d t hat r emoval proceedi ngs i mpose a

cr i mi nal penal t y woul d seem t o i mpl i cat e al l of t hose "ot her

r ubr i cs" t hat appl y t o cr i mi nal pr oceedi ngs. See Ar eval o, 344

F. 3d at 10 n. 6. Yet , odd r esul t s woul d obt ai n i f t hose r ubr i cs

were t o appl y t o orders of r emoval . Because a nonci t i zen r emoved

on t he basi s of a f el ony convi ct i on l i kel y woul d have al r eady been

sent enced f or t hat convi ct i on, t he doubl e j eopar dy cl ause woul d

appear t o bar al t oget her hi s depor t at i on as a successi ve

puni shment . That r esul t woul d, i n ef f ect , gut Congr ess' s ent i r e

r emoval scheme. I n addi t i on, anot her cur i ous resul t of Bl ackman' s

argument woul d seemt o be t hat nonci t i zens convi ct ed of a removabl e

of f ense ( and t hus f or whom depor t at i on mi ght be cal l ed a cr i mi nal

puni shment ) woul d have t he benef i t of a case- by- case

pr opor t i onal i t y assessment under t he Ei ght h Amendment , whi l e t hose

who are r emoved on other , non- cr i mi nal gr ounds woul d not . But i t

i s i l l ogi cal t hat a convi ct i on shoul d somehow i nur e t o an al i en' s

benef i t .


20/24

- 20 -

For al l t hese reasons we concl ude that t he Ei ght h

Amendment cont i nues t o be i nappl i cabl e, and t hat Bl ackman i s not

ent i t l ed t o a pr opor t i onal wei ghi ng of hi s ci r cumst ances.

B. The Due Process Clause

I n a si mi l ar vei n, Bl ackman ar gues t hat t he Fi f t h

Amendment ' s due process cl ause8 r equi r es t hat t he i mmi gr at i on

consequences of hi s convi ct i on be pr opor t i onat e t o hi s cr i mi nal

conduct . Wi t h r espect t o puni t i ve damages, t he Cour t has hel d

t hat due pr ocess prohi bi t s puni t i ve damages or ot her penal t i es

t hat ar e "' gr ossl y excessi ve' i n r el at i on t o" t he gover nment ' s

" l egi t i mat e i nt er est s i n puni shment and det er r ence. " BMW of N.

Am. , I nc. v. Gor e, 517 U. S. 559, 568 ( 1996) ; see al so i d. at 575

( set t i ng f or t h t hr ee- f actor t est t o eval uat e const i t ut i onal i t y of

a puni t i ve damages award) .

Beyond t he f act t hat Bl ackman ci t es no case even

suggest i ng t hat Gore and i t s progeny appl y beyond t he puni t i ve

damages set t i ng, hi s argument suf f er s f r oma mor e basi c i nf i r mi t y.

I t f ai l s f or t he si mpl e r eason t hat t he ent i r e under pi nni ng of t he

Cour t ' s doct r i ne i s t hat puni t i ve damages awards " serve t he same

pur poses as cr i mi nal penal t i es. " St at e Far m Mut . Aut o. I ns. Co.

8 Because Bl ackman cont est s t he f ederal government ' s or der ofr emoval , hi s cl ai m i s pr edi cat ed on t he Fi f t h Amendment , not t heFour t eent h Amendment . Nevert hel ess, despi t e t he government ' scl ai m t o t he cont r ary, we t r eat cases deci ded by t he Supr eme Cour tunder bot h amendment s equi val ent l y. See Uni t ed St at es v. Neto,659 F. 3d 194, 201 n. 7 ( 1st Ci r . 2011) .


21/24

- 21 -

v. Campbel l , 538 U. S. 408, 417 ( 2003) . As t he Cour t has expl ai ned,

" [ t ] he Due Process Cl ause of t he Four t eent h Amendment pr ohi bi t s

t he i mposi t i on of gr ossl y excessi ve or ar bi t r ar y puni shment s on a

t or t f easor . " I d. at 416 ( emphasi s added) . "The r eason i s t hat

' [ e] l ement ar y not i ons of f ai r ness enshr i ned i n our const i t ut i onal

j ur i spr udence di ct at e t hat a person r ecei ve f ai r not i ce not onl y

of t he conduct t hat wi l l subj ect hi m t o puni shment , but al so of

t he sever i t y of t he penal t y t hat a St at e may i mpose. ' " I d. at 417

( quot i ng Gor e, 517 U. S. at 574) .

Because we do not t hi nk t he Cour t ' s descr i pt i on of

r emoval as a penal t y has changed i t s assessment t hat r emoval i s

not a puni shment - - f or t he under l yi ng convi ct i on f or whi ch a

nonci t i zen f el on i s r emoved or f or any ot her r eason - - we l i kewi se

t hi nk t he Fi f t h Amendment does not r equi r e t he pr opor t i onal i t y

assessment Bl ackman demands. 9 Cf . Cooper I ndus. , 532 U. S. at 433-

34 ( di scussi ng the Ei ght h Amendment and due pr ocess t ogether) .

9 Puni t i ve damages ser ve a det er r ent pur pose, Gore, 517 U. S.at 568, and t o determi ne whether a measur e i s a cr i mi nal penal t ymore gener al l y, t he Cour t l i kewi se consi der s whet her t he measur e"pr omot e[ s] t he t r adi t i onal ai ms of puni shment - - r et r i but i on anddet er r ence, ' " Hudson v. Uni t ed St at es, 522 U. S. 93, 99 ( 1997)( quot i ng Kennedy v. Mendoza- Mar t i nez, 372 U. S. 144, 168- 69( 1963) ) . To br i ng hi msel f wi t hi n t hi s doct r i ne, i n a passi ngf oot not e Bl ackman ci t es l egi sl at i ve hi st or y suggest i ng t hatr eent r y bar s, whi ch ar e "at t endant t o depor t at i on, " Dada v.Mukasey, 554 U. S. 1, 11- 12 ( 2008) , serve t o det er r epeated unl awf ulent r y i nt o t he Uni t ed St at es.

For t wo r easons t hi s descr i pt i on, even i f accur at e, does notal t er our anal ysi s. Fi r st , one must be pr eci se about t he r el evantconduct a measur e i s i nt ended t o det er . To be consi st ent wi t h


22/24

- 22 -

C. Constitutional Avoidance

Fi nal l y, Bl ackman cl ai ms t hat we need not def i ni t i vel y

hol d t hat t he Const i t ut i on r equi r es a pr opor t i onal i t y anal ysi s.

I nst ead, ci t i ng t he canon of const i t ut i onal avoi dance, he ur ges us

t o i nt er pr et 8 U. S. C. 1229a( c) ( 1) ( A) t o avoi d any const i t ut i onal

i nf i r mi t i es and, t hus, t o r equi r e an I J t o consi der pr opor t i onal i t y

when determi ni ng whether an al i en i s r emovabl e. See 8 U. S. C.

1229a( c) ( 1) ( A) ( "At t he concl usi on of t he pr oceedi ng t he

i mmi gr at i on j udge shal l deci de whet her an al i en i s r emovabl e f r om

t he Uni t ed St at es. ") . Thi s ar gument necessar i l y f ai l s. Because

an al i en' s cat egor i cal r emoval absent a pr opor t i onal i t y r evi ew

poses no ser i ous const i t ut i onal pr obl em, t hi s canon of

const r uct i on i s al t oget her i nappl i cabl e. See, e. g. , War ger v.

Bl ackman' s cl ai m t hat Padi l l a r ecogni zed depor t at i on as a penal t yf or an under l yi ng cr i mi nal convi ct i on, r emoval bars woul d need t odet er t hat under l yi ng cr i mi nal conduct . But t he l egi sl at i vehi st or y speaks of det er r i ng i ndi vi dual s f r om unl awf ul l y r e-ent er i ng t he count r y. I t says not hi ng about whet her t hose bar sdet er i ndi vi dual s f r omcommi t t i ng t he under l yi ng cr i mi nal of f ensesf or whi ch t hey ar e bei ng depor t ed. Second, even i f r eent r y bar sdi d i n some r espect det er cr i mi nal conduct , a penal t y t hat serves

mer el y an i nci dent al det er r ent f unct i on does not aut omat i cal l yt r ansf orm t hat penal t y i nt o a puni shment . See Hudson, 522 U. S. at105 ( not i ng t hat t he "mer e pr esence" of a det er r ent pur pose i s" i nsuf f i ci ent t o r ender a sanct i on cr i mi nal , as det er r ence mayser ve ci vi l as wel l as cri mi nal goal s" ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ksomi t t ed) ) ; accor d Bae v. Shal al a, 44 F. 3d 489, 494 ( 7t h Ci r . 1995) ."Any number of gover nment al progr ams mi ght det er cr i me wi t houti mposi ng puni shment . " Smi t h, 538 U. S. at 102.


23/24

- 23 -

Shauer s, 135 S. Ct . 521, 529 ( 2014) ; Uni t ed St at es v. Dwi nel l s,

508 F. 3d 63, 70 ( 1st Ci r . 2007) .

III.

I n t he end, our hol di ng i s bol st er ed by t he dr amat i c

separat i on of power s consequences t hat woul d f ol l ow i f we accept ed

Bl ackman' s readi ng of Padi l l a. Hi s ar gument boi l s down t o an

asser t i on t hat i n seemi ngl y any removal pr oceedi ng an I J or a

r evi ewi ng cour t i s r equi r ed t o assess whet her r emoval i s a

pr opor t i onal penal t y f or t he al i en' s cr i me. But , i n ur gi ng us t o

endor se a case- by- case wei ghi ng of an al i en' s i ndi vi dual

ci r cumst ances agai nst t he penal t y of r emoval , Bl ackman' s argument

i s i n ef f ect " an i mper mi ssi bl e ef f or t t o shi f t t o t he j udi ci ar y

t he power t o expel or r et ai n al i ens. " Enwonwu v. Gonzal es, 438

F. 3d 22, 28 ( 1st Ci r . 2006) . The Const i t ut i on, however , assi gns

t o Congr ess " t he t asks of def i ni ng how al i ens are admi t t ed t o t he

Uni t ed St at es, whether and under what condi t i ons t hey may st ay,

and under what condi t i ons such an al i en wi l l be r emoved or may

avoi d r emoval . " I d.

We do not deny that l awf ul permanent r esi dent s, l i ke

Bl ackman, "enj oy[ ] t he f ul l pr ot ect i on of t he Uni t ed St at es

Const i t ut i on. " Her r er a- I ni r i o v. I . N. S. , 208 F. 3d 299, 306 ( 1st

Ci r . 2000) . Nor do we gai nsay t hat " t he Due Process Cl ause appl i es

t o al l ' per sons' wi t hi n t he Uni t ed St at es, i ncl udi ng al i ens,

whet her t hei r pr esence her e i s l awf ul , unl awf ul , t empor ar y, or


24/24

per manent . " Zadvydas v. Davi s, 533 U. S. 678, 693 ( 2001) . But , at

l east when del i neat i ng t hose cl asses of al i ens who ar e r emovabl e,

t he Const i t ut i on i n i t s f ul l est appl i cat i on pl aces l i t t l e

subst ant i ve l i mi t on Congr ess' s r easonabl e pol i cy deci si ons. See

Enwonwu, 438 F. 3d at 30- 31 ( ci t i ng Gal van, 347 U. S. at 530- 33) .

"Depor t at i on i s st r i ct l y a Congr essi onal pol i cy quest i on i n whi ch

t he j udi ci ar y wi l l not i nt er vene as l ong as pr ocedur al due pr ocess

r equi r ement s have been met . " LeTour neur v. I . N. S. , 538 F. 2d 1368,

1370 ( 9t h Ci r . 1976) .

Unl ess and unt i l t he Supr eme Cour t concei ves of r emoval

as a puni shment , or ot herwi se hol ds t hat t he Ei ght h Amendment or

t he due pr ocess cl ause requi r es a whol esal e case- by- case

assessment of t he wi sdom of r emovi ng a par t i cul ar al i en, we r ef use

t o t ake that advent ur ous l eap on our own and "subst i t ut e our

pol i t i cal j udgment f or t hat of . . . Congr ess. " Fi al l o v. Bel l ,

430 U. S. 787, 798 ( 1977) . We decl i ne t o i mpose such an ext r a-

l egi sl at i ve di scr et i onar y wei ghi ng r egi me i n t he pl ace of

Congr ess' s cat egor i cal pol i cy j udgment s about whi ch cr i mi nal

convi ct i ons shoul d subj ect an al i en t o r emoval .

Accor di ngl y, Bl ackman' s pet i t i on f or r evi ew i s denied.

blackman hinds v. holder, 1st cir. (2015)

Documents