Opinion ID: 504696
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: eleventh circuit flotilla jurisprudence

Text: 17 In Pollgreen, vessel owners and operators like the defendants here sued to challenge section 1323 fines and the seizure of vessels which had resulted from their participation in the Mariel Boatlift. INS had determined that duress was not a defense to penalties incurred under section 1323. 5 The district court disagreed and concluded that duress was available in efforts to mitigate and defend against penalties assessed under this statute. Having found that duress was established on the record before it, the district court ordered the remission of the fines assessed by INS and the release of vessels seized. 18 We established conclusively that duress is a defense to fines imposed under section 1323, 770 F.2d at 1538, 1544, but reversed the district court because it had decided the factual question of duress de novo. Id. at 1544; see also Lyden v. Howerton, 783 F.2d 1554, 1155 (11th Cir.1986) (It is now the settled law of this circuit that duress is available as a defense to violations of 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1323.). We directed the district court to remand the individual vessel owners' cases to INS for rehearing, reconsideration, and redetermination ... on such new or further evidence as the agency in the first instance, deems appropriate on the issue of duress. Id. at 1546. 19 Lyden arose in a fashion similar to Pollgreen. As in Pollgreen, the district court found that the vessel owners and operators had made out a defense of duress. We again held that remand to INS was appropriate since the agency had misapplied the law. 6 20 In Lyden, we described the position of INS, as evidenced by decisions of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), which obtained prior to our decision in Pollgreen. See, e.g., In re M.V. Solemn Judge, 18 I & N Dec. 186 (B.I.A.1982). 7 INS processed the fines imposed during the Mariel Boatlift while under the view that even if duress were available in mitigation the owners forfeited that right by going to Cuba to perform an illegal act, thereby placing themselves in danger of duress. Lyden, 783 F.2d at 1556. (citing Solemn Judge, supra ). 8 Consequently, until the matter was resolved by this court, INS operated under the erroneous belief that section 1323 is a strict liability statute without defense. Lyden, 783 F.2d at 1557.