Marin-Marin v. Sessions
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 5277
| 2d Cir. | 2017Background
- Petitioner Antonio Paul Marin‑Marin, a native of Ecuador, entered the U.S. without inspection in 2013 as a 17‑year‑old and later conceded removability for unlawful entry.
- He did not apply for relief from removal and acknowledged in proceedings that he was ineligible for special immigrant juvenile status.
- Marin‑Marin moved to terminate proceedings arguing removal would be constitutionally disproportionate to the ground for removability.
- He claimed removal would violate the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment and the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause (as an excessive or grossly excessive penalty).
- The Immigration Judge concluded he lacked jurisdiction to conduct a proportionality analysis; the BIA summarily affirmed. Marin‑Marin petitioned for review in this Court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether IJ/BIA must apply a proportionality test before ordering removal | Marin‑Marin: removal must be weighed for proportionality under the Eighth and Fifth Amendments; disproportionate removal is unconstitutional | Gov’t: removal is civil, not punitive; no constitutional proportionality requirement; statutory consequences for unlawful entry give fair notice | Court: No proportionality requirement; removal is not punishment and Due Process fair‑notice concerns do not apply here |
| Whether the Eighth Amendment applies to noncitizen removal | Marin‑Marin: removal can be an excessive punishment | Gov’t: Eighth Amendment governs criminal punishment, not civil removal | Held: Eighth Amendment inapplicable because deportation is civil, not punitive |
| Whether State Farm‑style substantive due process (proportionality) applies | Marin‑Marin: due process requires proportionality review akin to punitive‑damages limits | Gov’t: State Farm concerns fair notice of severity; unauthorized entry’s consequences are clear and foreseeable | Held: State Farm reasoning inapplicable; no fair‑notice problem here |
| Procedural claim that IJ denied chance to apply for relief | Marin‑Marin: IJ prevented him from seeking relief | Gov’t: Record contradicts; claim not exhausted before BIA | Held: Court need not reach merits; record belies claim and issue unexhausted |
Key Cases Cited
- Santelises v. Immigration & Naturalization Serv., 491 F.2d 1254 (2d Cir. 1974) (deportation is civil, not punishment)
- Harisiades v. Shaughnessy, 342 U.S. 580 (1952) (deportation not criminal punishment)
- Reno v. American‑Arab Anti‑Discrimination Comm., 525 U.S. 471 (1999) (removal enforces terms of admission, not punishment for criminal act)
- Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010) (deportation described as severe consequence; counsel must advise about immigration effects of plea)
- State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. v. Campbell, 538 U.S. 408 (2003) (due process limits on punitive damages tied to fair‑notice concerns)
- Cervantes‑Ascencio v. U.S. Immigration & Naturalization Serv., 326 F.3d 83 (2d Cir. 2003) (Due Process in immigration requires notice and a fair hearing)
- Hinds v. Lynch, 790 F.3d 259 (1st Cir. 2015) (Eighth Amendment not implicated by removal)
- Sunday v. Attorney General, 832 F.3d 211 (3d Cir. 2016) (same)