Source: https://www.lexisnexis.com/community/case-opinion/b/case/posts/clark-v-suarez-martinez
Timestamp: 2020-03-31 17:27:10
Document Index: 249035512

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1225', '§ 1225', '§ 1182', '§ 212', '§ 1231', '§ 1182', '§ 1255']

] An alien arriving in the United States must be inspected by an immigration official, 66 Stat 198, as amended, 8 U.S.C. § 1225(a)(3), and, unless he is found "clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to be admitted," must generally undergo removal proceedings to determine admissibility, § 1225(b)(2)(A). Meanwhile the alien may be detained, subject to the Secretary's discretionary authority to parole him into the country. See § 1182(d)(5) [****6] ; 8 C.F.R. § 212.5 (2004). If, at the conclusion of removal proceedings, the alien is determined to be inadmissible and ordered removed, the law provides that the Secretary of Homeland Security "shall remove the alien from the United States within a period of 90 days," 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(1)(A). These cases concern the Secretary's authority to continue to detain an inadmissible alien subject to a removal order after the 90-day removal period has elapsed.
[*374] Sergio Suarez Martinez (respondent in No. 03-878) and Daniel Benitez (petitioner in No. 03-7434) arrived in the United States from Cuba in June 1980 as part of the Mariel boatlift, see Palma v. Verdeyen, 676 F.2d 100, 101 (CA4 1982) (describing circumstances of Mariel boatlift), and were paroled into the country pursuant to the Attorney General's authority under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(d)(5). 2 See Pet. for Cert. in No. 03-878, p 7; [****7] Benitez v. Wallis, 337 F.3d 1289, 1290 (CA11 2003). Until 1996, federal law permitted Cubans who were paroled into the United States to adjust their status to that of lawful permanent resident after one year. See Cuban Refugee Adjustment Act, 80 Stat 1161, as amended, notes following 8 USC § 1255. Neither Martinez nor Benitez qualified for this adjustment, however, because, by the time they applied, both men had become inadmissible because of prior criminal convictions in the United States. When Martinez sought adjustment in 1991, he had been convicted of assault with a deadly weapon in Rhode Island and burglary in California, Pet. for Cert. in No. 03-878, at 7; when Benitez sought adjustment in 1985, he had been convicted of grand theft in Florida, 337 F.3d, at 1290. Both men were convicted of additional felonies after their adjustment applications were denied: Martinez of petty theft with a prior conviction (1996), assault with a deadly weapon (1998), and attempted oral copulation by force (1999), see Pet. for Cert. in No. 03-878, at 7-8; Benitez of two counts of armed robbery, [****8] armed burglary of a conveyance, armed burglary of a structure, [**721] aggravated battery, carrying a concealed firearm, [*375] unlawful possession of a firearm while engaged in a criminal offense, and unlawful [***743] possession, sale, or delivery of a firearm with an altered serial number (1993), see 337 F.3d, at 1290-1291.