Court Opinion

ID: 9486607
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 11:54:16.182329+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:51:49.874709
License: Public Domain

SNEED, Circuit Judge,
dissenting:
The majority has given us an opinion from which we hear, in the distance, the clash of ideas and arms that characterized the Age of Enlightenment and the accompanying American and French Revolutions. However, I am not moved to conclude that the incarceration of Barrera-Echavarria has violated, or presently does violate, the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution. Moreover, this incarceration is explicitly authorized by an act of Congress. I begin by examining 8 U.S.C. § 1226(e).
I.
When Congress enacted section 1226(e) in 1990, it was aware of immigration detention and of the Attorney General’s regulations for parole of Mariel Cubans. See, e.g., Mariel Cuban Detainees: Events Preceding and Following the November 1987 Riots: Hearing Before the Subcomm. on Courts, Civil Liberties, and the Administration of Justice of the House Comm, on the Judiciary, 100th Cong., 2d Sess. (1988) [hereinafter Hearing I ]. Thus, Congress was aware that the Attorney General was detaining some aliens and releasing others.
Its enactment of section 1226(e) was therefore designed to prevent the release of all such aliens. See 136 Cong.Rec. S17,118 (daily ed. Oct. 26, 1990) (statement of Sen. Graham): “[T]he Federal Government must make sure that dangerous aliens are not on the streets, not allowed to commit new crimes, and not caught in a lengthy deportation process.” See also id. at S17,117 (referring to “the loopholes through which criminal aliens were escaping”).
But which of the Mariel Cubans should be entitled to parole and which detained? Congress attempted, but failed, to pass a bill that would have limited the detention of excluda-ble aliens to six months. See H.R. 4349, 100th Cong., 2d Sess. § 1 (1988). The bill’s proponents specifically mentioned that their measure “would provide relief for Mariel Cuban detainees.” See Mariel Cuban Detainees: Hearing on H.R. 4330 and H.R. 4349 Before the Subcomm. on Immigration, Refugees, and International Law of the House Comm. on the Judiciary, 100th Cong., 2d Sess. 1 (1988) [hereinafter Hearing II] (introductory statement of Rep. Mazzoli).
*320Clearly, the majority in Congress saw that excessive parole, not excessive detention, was the problem. This should come as no surprise. Of the approximately 125,000 Mariel Cubans arriving in 1980, 122,000 were promptly paroled while an additional 800 were approved for parole by December 1981. Palma v. Verdeyen, 676 F.2d 100, 101 & n. 1 (4th Cir.1982); see also Hearing I, supra, at 20 (statement of Rep. Swindall): “[W]ith the exception of roughly 100 individuals, each and every [Mariel Cuban detainee] was, in fact, released into society and chose on their own volition to commit crimes, or to engage in activities that w[ere] expressly [prohibited] as a condition precedent to their being allowed to remain in this country.”
The majority has turned the legislative history of section 1226(e) upside down. It treats that provision as an implicit limit on detention when in fact Congress regarded it as an explicit limit on parole. The Fifth Circuit agrees with the latter perspective, which the majority dismisses as “feeble,” but which is actually the correct one. See Gisbert v. U.S. Attorney General, 988 F.2d 1437, 1445-46 (5th Cir.), amended on other grounds, 997 F.2d 1122 (5th Cir.1993). The enactment of section 1226(e) did not create a right to mandatory parole in all cases; it merely limited access to parole in instances of aggravated assault and otherwise left the law as it was.
It is curious that the majority argues that the explicit limits on parole in one part of section 1226(e) mandate parole in other contexts. The excluded middle, detention left to the discretion of the Attorney General, remains. Moreover, while Congress has set explicit limits on detention in other contexts, in this instance no limits are fixed. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(c) (setting six-month limit on detention of deportable aliens).
The majority finally is driven to find an implicit- limit to detention under section 1226(e) as well as in the current case. This dictum is gratuitous, dangerous — and incorrect. Section 1226(e) allows release “only after ... the [Attorney General’s parole] review concludes that the alien will not pose a danger to the safety of other persons or to property.” 8 U.S.C. § 1226(e)(3) (emphasis added). Section 1226(e) does not set any time limits and indeed goes to a great deal of trouble to preclude them.
II.
A.
The majority’s decision mandating release of an excluded alien also rejects explicitly the overall statutory and regulatory structure of the immigration laws. That structure assumed reasonably that Congress contemplated that with respect to excluded aliens immediate deportation would be the normal response. See 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1) (emphasis added): “Any alien ... who is excluded ... shall be immediately deported ... unless the Attorney General, in an individual ease, in his discretion, concludes that immediate deportation is not practicable or proper. ”
Nevertheless, Congress" recognized that detention is also a part of the statutory structure. The Attorney General has discretion to parole excludable aliens temporarily into the United States, but when such parole is complete, “the alien shall'forthwith return or be returned to the custody from which he was paroled. ” 8 U.S.C. § 1182(d)(5)(A) (emphasis added). Further, the costs of maintaining an excluded alien “includ[e] detention expenses and expenses incident to detention of any such alien while he is being detained.” Id. § 1227(a)(1). The statutes thus give the Attorney General three alternatives: deportation, detention, and parole. Congress, to repeat, has expressed a preference for the first, but generally has delegated the ultimate choice' to the Attorney General.
B.
The legislative history of the immigration acts is consistent with this view. Congress was certainly aware of immigration detention at the time it enacted the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952. See, e.g., 98 Cong.Rec. 4302 (1952) (statement of Rep. Walter) (recalling the story of Ellen Knauff, a “friendless little immigrant girl who sat on Ellis Island for nearly 3 years without anybody telling her why she was being detained”). More recently, Congress has been *321aware of the plight of the Mariel Cubans. See Hearing I, supra; Hearing II, supra.
Notwithstanding its awareness of these issues, Congress expressly rejected an amendment to the immigration laws that would have allowed all excluded aliens to go free under bond. See S.Rep. No. 1515, 81st Cong., 2d Sess. 643-14 (“[T]o permit [excluded aliens] to enter the United States under bond would bring about the very thing that Congress intended should not be done.”). And, as described above, the most recent congressional action was to reduce the Attorney General’s discretion to parole excluded aliens, by restricting the release of aggravated felons. See 8 U.S.C. § 1226(e).
Nor can the mere length of detention, without more, guarantee an excluded alien’s parole into the United States. To hold otherwise would reward the intractability of nations like Cuba who engage in thrusting their undesirables upon their enemies. The Con-, stitution requires no such absurd result.
C.
Any lingering doubts about the Attorney General’s statutory authority should be dispelled by 8 U.S.C. § 1103(a), which grants the Attorney General broad powers to enforce the immigration laws. This court has accordingly given deference to the Attorney General’s interpretation of the immigration statutes. See, e.g., Mason v. Brooks, 862 F.2d 190, 192 (9th Cir.1988). The Attorney General’s interpretation here predates Shaughnessy v. United States ex rel. Mezei, 345 U.S. 206, 73 S.Ct. 625, 97 L.Ed. 956 (1953). This interpretation has survived the Mezei decision and the 1990 congressional overhaul of the immigration laws.
D.
Detailed regulations set forth the procedures for parole of excluded aliens in general, 8 C.F.R. § 212.5, and of the Mariel Cubans in particular, id. §§ 212.12-212.13. Mariel Cuban detainees receive a parole review at least annually. 8 C.F.R. § 212.-12(g)(2). The applicable regulations set forth detailed factors to guide the review panel’s analysis. See id. § 212.12(d)(2)-(3). Panel members review the detainee’s file; should this be insufficient to grant parole, the panel must personally interview the detainee, who may be accompanied by a person of his choice. Id. § 212.12(d)(4)(i)-(ii). The panel’s recommendations are then considered by the Associate Commissioner for Enforcement. Id. § 212.12(d)(4)(iii). Finally, detainees receive one additional review from a Justice Department panel. Id. § 212.13. Judicial review of these parole decisions is, of course, available to all detainees. See Alvarez-Mendez v. Stock, 941 F.2d 956, 963 (9th Cir.1991), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 113 S.Ct. 127, 121 L.Ed.2d 82 (1992).
III.
A.
There remains the question of the constitutionality of this statutory and regulatory structure as applied to Barrera-Eehavarria. Again, a proper understanding of historical context is necessary.
Barrera-Eehavarria arrived in the United States on May 29, 1980. Thereafter, he was arrested four times for various crimes: grand theft auto (May 28, 1981), retail theft (August 22, 1981), armed robbery (August 23, 1981), and strong arm robbery (June 4, 1982). The dispositions of these arrests are not revealed by the record. On July 11, 1982, petitioner was arrested for armed robbery. After his conviction in state court on March 1, 1983, he was sentenced to 230 days in prison, most of which he had served by the March 1 date.
No more than two months thereafter, May 26, 1983, Barrera-Eehavarria was arrested for burglary and theft, and sentenced to two years in state prison. Less than two years later, January 29, 1985, the immigration authorities revoked petitioner’s parole and assigned him to federal prison effective February 13, 1985. Thus, Barrera-Eehavarria was not under direct control of the Immigration and Naturalization Service for almost five years following his arrival in this country. The loss of that status was attributable to his own misconduct while in this country for which he was punished by state authorities primarily.
The majority observes that “[s]ince 1985 [Barrera-Eehavarria] has not been convicted *322of any state or federal crime.” Although literally true, this statement is misleading. Obviously, the purpose of federal detention was to prevent Barrera-Echavarria from committing such crimes. Nevertheless, while in prison, Barrera-Echavarria has been disciplined for numerous acts of misconduct: (1) In April 1985, Barrera-Echavarria received 15 days segregation for burning his pants; (2) again in April 1985, Barrera-Echavarria received 21 days segregation for burning a blanket; (3) in May 1985, Barrera-Echavarria received 30 days segregation for destroying a sink and toilet; and (4) in January 1986 and March 1987, Barrera-Echavar-ria fought with other inmates.
During his federal detention, he has received six parole reviews roughly on an annual basis. The last was in February, 1993. In 1992 he was paroled to a halfway house, but on June 8, 1992, he was arrested on charges of sexual assault and apparently detained by state authorities to May 28, 1993, when in due course he was transferred to the federal prison in Terre Haute, Indiana.
B.
In light of this record, does continued incarceration of Barrera-Echavarria violate the Eighth Amendment? I think not. Petitioner, like his fellow Mariel Cubans, has received every opportunity to earn the parole he now claims as his right. This record embodies, at worst, a mixture of deserved punishment and protection of the public. In the sense of the Constitution, there is nothing “cruel and unusual” about it.
The basic compact between the government and its people is a simple and unchanging one: The state protects its people from enemies abroad and within, in exchange for the people’s obedience to the law and allegiance. Each of the petitioner’s constitutional rights must be read against that compact. In my opinion, the Attorney General’s regulations, and the numerous opportunities this petitioner in particular has received, reflect a properly struck balance. As Justice Goldberg once said, “while the Constitution protects against invasions of individual rights, it is not a suicide pact.” Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez, 372 U.S. 144, 160, 83 S.Ct. 554, 563, 9 L.Ed.2d 644 (1963).
By contrast, the majority frames the issue solely in terms of the petitioner’s rights, inaccurately described. The rights of the public are treated as of substantially unequal and subordinate value. In that manner it finds “punishment” when in fact the sovereign has no interest in either subjecting the alien to retribution or to reform, but only in protecting the public during his uninvited and unwanted presence. This fatally flawed perspective allows the majority to distinguish the “one undisputed authority” applicable to this case, Shaughnessy v. United States ex rel. Mezei, 345 U.S. 206, 73 S.Ct. 625, 97 L.Ed. 956 (1953). In Mezei the Supreme Court recognized the “present hardship” wrought by an excluded alien’s detention on Ellis Island, id. at 216, 73 S.Ct. at 631, but ultimately concluded: “[W]e do not think that respondent’s continued exclusion deprives him of any statutory or constitutional right.” Id. at 215, 73 S.Ct. at 630. The majority here casts aside this clear command on the basis of an arbitrary and as-yet-undisclosed time limit. The majority applies instead the doctrines of United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 107 S.Ct. 2095, 95 L.Ed.2d 697 (1987) (involving a person’s right to avoid pretrial detention), and Foucha v. Louisiana, — U.S. -, 112 S.Ct. 1780, 118 L.Ed.2d 437 (1992) (involving a person’s right to be released from commitment upon recovering his sanity), while ignoring the vast and compelling legal distinction between the citizens in those cases and the excluded aliens in Mezei and this case.
Petitioner should, of course, continue his efforts to secure parole so as to ensure that he may again be paroled at the point where such parole would be reasonably safe for the community. The immigration officials should assume some risks in order to avoid crossing the line into retribution or reform. This court should stand ready to review the.propriety of later parole decisions. But I cannot judicially impose a procrustean time limit on this process. I must, therefore, respectfully dissent.