Document: 533 U.S. 348121 S.Ct. 2268150 L.Ed.2d 392 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of United States Reports. Readers are requested notify Reporter Decisions, Supreme Court States, Washington, D. C. 20543, any typographical or other errors, order that corrections may be made goes pressDEBORIS CALCANO-MARTINEZ, et al., PETITIONERSv.IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE No. 00-1011 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Argued April 24, 2001June 25, 2001 SyllabusPetitioners lawful permanent residents administratively final removal orders because they were convicted aggravated felonies. Each filed a petition for review Second Circuit pursuant 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1) and habeas corpus District 28 2241 challenge Board Immigration Appeals' determination that, as matter law, ineligible apply discretionary waiver deportation under former §212(c) Nationality Act. The dismissed their petitions lack jurisdiction, holding could nevertheless pursue claims §2241 action district court. Held: lacked jurisdiction hear direct review, but petitioners can proceed with if wish obtain relief. Illegal Reform Immigrant Responsibility Act 1996 (IIRIRA) expressly precludes courts appeals from exercising against an alien removable by reason conviction for, inter alia, felony. 1252(a)(2)(C). plain language explicitly strips ability petitioners' on review. However, Congress has not spoken sufficient clarity strip raising identical claims, see INS v. St. Cyr, ante, at ___, action. Pp. 2 4.232 F.3d 328, affirmed. ON WRIT CERTIORARI TO APPEALS FOR SECOND CIRCUIT Stevens, J., delivered Court, which Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer, JJ., joined. Justice Stevens Court. 1 Deboris Calcano-Martinez, Sergio Madrid, Fazila Khan all removal. They conceded deportable based upon past criminal convictions, each both §1252(a)(1) (1994 ed., Supp. V) Act, 66 Stat. 182, 1182(c) ed.). Their consolidated Appeals, subsequently constitutional statutory court brought 2241. 232 328 (CA2 2000). We granted certiorari this case, 531 1108 (2001), 00 767, 1107 comprehensively consider whether aliens position seek relief Appeals (pursuant 1252(a)(1)); 2241); all. For reasons stated below our p.__, we agree it lacks issue case must, therefore, As part (IIRIRA), 110 3009 546, adopted new provisions governing judicial immigration orders. See 1252 (codifying these procedures). Like prior statute, provision vests authority challenging "final orders" commanding "removal" States. §1252(a)(1).1 unlike previous provisions, statute "jurisdiction who " certain offenses, including §1252(a)(2)(C).2 3 "aggravated felonies" within meaning relevant statutes,3 §1252(a)(2)(C) fairly Without much discussion, so held. F.3d, 342 343. 4 Before primarily argue considerations background principles interpretation require afforded some forum adjudication merits claims. devote bulk briefs arguing motivated concerns properly interpreted IIRIRA's jurisdiction-stripping preclude such pursuing Brief Petitioners 12 42, 44 49. In alternative, might construe same stripping over only matters, leaving place directly previously cognizable §2241. Id., 42 44. 5 without adjudicating those raised would raise serious questions. also best alleviated construing __. 6 Finding no support text history §1252 concluding retain affirm judgment particulars. 7 It ordered. O'Connor, dissenting opinion. 9 Scalia, opinion, Rehnquist, Thomas, NOTES: An additional difference between old regard one nomenclature. keeping statute-wide change terminology, refers rather than "deportation" "exclusion." Compare V), §1105a scope preclusion entirely clear. Though quite broad, its ambiguities. Throughout litigation, government have power factual determinations thought trigger (such individual he she been felony" statute). Respondent 22 23. addition, "substantial challenges" come strictures §1252(a)(2)(C). id., 23 24. do types issues, need address point further. Nonetheless, remains instructive acknowledges construction must considered determining provisions. All three controlled substance offenses served four months years prison. concedes his her crime defined 1101(a)(43), renders him §1227(a)(2)(A)(iii). 10 dissenting. 11 my companion I Scalia's proposed disposition instant case. whom Chief Thomas join, 13 __, vacate remand instructions dismiss want prejudice Calcano-Martinez's Madrid's refiling

Category: 1