Court Opinion

ID: 9467423
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 01:48:24.116616+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:40:20.505067
License: Public Domain

WALLACE, Circuit Judge,
dissenting:
Although I am sympathetic with Plasencia’s plight, the cases that bind us require me to dissent. The law simply does not provide for the full panoply of procedural rights which the majority concludes are required.
If Plaseneia “entered” the United States with an intent to accomplish an object which is contrary to some policy in the immigration laws, the district court must be reversed. The Supreme Court in Rosenberg v. Fleuti, 374 U.S. 449, 83 S.Ct. 1804, 10 L.Ed.2d 1000 (1963), held that a resident alien, who has left our country, does not “enter” the United States if he or she did not intend “to depart in a manner which can be regarded as meaningfully interruptive of the alien’s permanent residence.” Id. at 462, 83 S.Ct. at 1812. The Court stated that one factor relevant to the determination of that intent “is the purpose of the visit, for if the purpose of leaving the country is to accomplish some object which is itself contrary to some policy reflected in our immigration laws, it would appear that the interruption of residence thereby occurring would properly be regarded as meaningful.” Id.
Thus, the focus of our attention is whether Plasencia’s purpose in leaving the United States was to do something in violation of our immigration laws. She was found to have done so. The majority contends that such a finding can be made only in a deportation proceeding. This conclusion can be reached only by a misreading of the case that is most directly in point, Palatian v. INS, 502 F.2d 1091 (9th Cir.1974). The *1290majority states that Palatian was unlike the instant case because the alien in Palatian had been excluded after his conviction for importing marijuana. He had, therefore, received a full criminal proceeding “in which he enjoyed the full panoply of procedural rights.” In Palatian, however, we were not concerned with whether the defendant’s criminal trial had afforded him adequate procedural safeguards. Rather, we were concerned with whether there had been a “meaningful interruption” as required by the Supreme Court in Rosenberg v. Fleuti, supra, 374 U.S. at 462, 83 S.Ct. at 1812. Palatian focused on the language in Fleuti, quoted above, to find that a meaningful interruption of Palatian’s residence had occurred. We further stated:
What Palatian did when he attempted to come back to this country from Mexico was an “[attempt] to accomplish some object which is itself contrary to some policy reflected in our immigration laws.” These laws provide for the exclusion or deportation of an alien who has been convicted of smuggling marijuana. 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(23), 8 U.S.C. § 1251(a)(ll). This is a clear indication that the immigration laws reflect a general concern over the problem of drug control.
502 F.2d at 1093.
The majority goes astray by attempting to distinguish Palatian on the basis that there was no full trial provided to Plasencia as was provided to Palatian. The majority overlooks the difference between the statutes involved in the two cases. The statute in Palatian was 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(23), which provides for the exclusion of “[a]ny alien who has been convicted of a violation of, or a conspiracy to violate, any law or regulation relating to the illicit possession of or traffic in narcotic drugs or marihuana ...” (emphasis added). Pursuant to this statute, we found that Palatian had an intent to accomplish an object which was contrary to a policy reflected in the immigration laws, and therefore, even if Palatian formed this intent after departing from the United States, a “meaningful interruption” of his residence had occurred. The statute under which Palatian was excluded, however, required a conviction. 502 F.2d at 1093.
In contrast, the statute in the instant case is 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(31), which provides for the exclusion of “[a]ny alien who at any time shall have, knowingly and for gain, encouraged, induced, assisted, abetted, or aided any other alien to enter or to try to enter the United States in violation of the law.” This statute simply does not require a conviction for exclusion, as does the drug possession statute. 1 Gordon & Rosenfield, Immigration Law and Procedure § 2.46 (1980). When Plasencia returned to this country, she attempted to accomplish an object that was contrary to a policy reflected in our immigration laws. By statute, no conviction was required. Therefore, like Palatian, a “meaningful interruption” of Plasencia’s residence had occurred.
The majority relies on Maldonado-Sandoval v. INS, 518 F.2d 278 (9th Cir.1975) (per curiam), for the proposition that a permanent resident alien does not lose the procedural protection to which he or she is otherwise entitled simply by making a brief journey abroad. That case, however, is distin-. guishable from Palatian and the instant case because the alien in Maldonado-Sandoval was not engaged in any illegal activity when he attempted to reenter the United States. In Maldonado-Sandoval, we held that the resident alien’s two or three day trip to Mexico was an “ ‘innocent, casual, and brief excursion,’ ” and “did not manifest ‘an intent to depart in a manner which can be regarded as meaningfully interruptive of the alien’s permanent residence.’ ” Id. at 281, quoting Rosenberg v. Fleuti, supra, 374 U.S. at 462, 83 S.Ct. at 1812. In Palatian and in the instant case, on the other hand, there was no “innocent, casual, and brief excursion.” The excursions in both cases were for illegal purposes, and were meaningfully interruptive of the aliens’ permanent residences.
Congress has made a determination that certain procedural safeguards that are necessary prior to the exclusion of an alien *1291based upon drug smuggling are not necessary prior to the exclusion of an alien based upon smuggling of illegal aliens. The former requires a criminal conviction; the latter does not. Even though the statutes provide for a seemingly disparate treatment, “Congress unquestionably has the power to exclude all classes of undesirable aliens from this country, and the courts are charged with enforcing such exclusion when Congress has directed it ....” Rosenberg v. Fleuti, supra, 374 U.S. at 461, 83 S.Ct. at 1811. We do not have the right or power to interpolate procedural requirements from one statute to another. Plasencia’s attempt to smuggle illegal aliens across the border made her departure from the United States meaningfully interruptive of her permanent residence. She was thus subject to exclusion on her attempt to enter the country. I conclude that the district court’s holding that the Immigration and Naturalization Service could proceed against such an alien only in a deportation proceeding is incorrect, and, therefore, I would reverse.