# Castro v. United States Department of Homeland Security

> Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · August 29, 2016 · 835 F.3d 422

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9835789

## Case

- **Full name:** Rosa Elida CASTRO; A.A.G.C.; Laura Lisseth Flores-Pichinte; E.S.U.F.; Karen Margarita Zelaya Alberto; S.E.A.Z; Kelly Gutierrez Rubio; G.J.S.G.; Gladis Carrasco Gomez; B.J.R.C.; Wendy Amparo Osorio Martinez; D.S.R.O.; Carmen Leiva-Menjivar; E.A.M.L.; A.M.M.L.; Dina Isabel Huezo De Chicas; L.J.C.H.; Cindy Gisela Lopez Funez; W.S.M.L.; Lesly Grizelda Cruz Matamoros; C.N.V.C.; Jeydi Erazo Anduray; D.A.L.E.; Dinora Lemus; A.R.M.L.; Jennys Mendez Debonilla; A.B.B.M.; Marta Alicia Rodriguez Romero; W.A.M.R.; C.A.M.R.; Roxana Aguirre-Lemus; C.A.A.; Celia Patricia Soriano Bran; J.A.A.S.; Maria Delmi Martinez Nolasco; J.E.L.M.; Guadalupe Flores Flores; W.J.B.F.; Carmen Aleyda Lobo Mejia; A.D.M.L.L.; Julissa Clementina Hernandez Jiminez; A.H.V.H.; Maria Erlinda Mejia Melgar; E.N.C.M.; D.G.C.M.; Jethzabel Martiza Aguilar Manica; V.G.R.A.; Heymi Lissamancia Arevalo-Monterroza; R.N.F.A; Elsa Milagros Rodriguez Garcia; J.M.V.G.; Elizabeth Benitez De Marquez; A.M.B.; Ingrid Maricela Elias Soriano; A.E.C.E.; Maribel Maria Escobar Ramirez; C.Y.L.E.; Y.I.L.E.; R.J.L.E.; Ana Maricel Rodriguez-Granados; J.A.B.R.; V.E.B.R.; Zulma Lorena Portillo De Diaz; K.L.D.P., Appellants v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; United States Customs and Border Protection; United States Citizenship and Immigration Services; United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Secretary of DHS; Attorney General of the United States; Commissioner of CBP; Director of USCIS; Philadelphia Field Director, CBP; Philadelphia Assistant Field Office Director, ICE; Director, Berks County Residential Center
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
- **Decided:** August 29, 2016
- **Citations:** 835 F.3d 422; 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 15926; 2016 WL 4501943
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Hardiman
- **Judges:** Smith, Hardiman, Shwartz
- **Cited by:** 106 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9835789

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- explaining, pre-Thuraissigiam, that Supreme Court precedent “call[s] into serious question the proposition that even the slightest entrance into this country triggers constitutional protections that are otherwise unavailable to the alien outside its borders”
- holding that the petitioners failed to “clear Boumediene’s first hurdle” based on Landon’s conclusion “that ‘an alien seeking initial admission to the United States requests a privilege and has no constitutional rights regarding his application.’”
- concluding that petitioners who unlawfully entered the country and were apprehended within hours were treated as aliens seeking admission at the border and thus could not invoke constitutional protections
- explaining that Section 1225(b)(1) applies to “arriving aliens” and those aliens “encountered within 14 days of entry without inspection and within 100 air miles of any U.S. international land border”
- observing that IIRIRA “makes abundantly clear that whatever jurisdiction courts have to review issues relating to expedited removal orders arises under § 1252(e)”

## Opinion text

HARDIMAN, Circuit Judge,
concurring dubitante.
I join Judge Smith’s excellent opinion in full, but I write separately to express my doubt that the expression of the plenary power doctrine in Landon v. Plasencia completely resolves step one of the Suspension Clause analysis under Boume-diene. Although Landon appears to preclude “alien[s] seeking initial admission to the United States” from invoking any constitutional protections “regarding [their] application^,” the question of what constitutional rights such aliens are afforded was not squarely before the Supreme Court in that case because the petitioner was a returning permanent resident. 459 U.S. 21, 23, 32 , 103 S.Ct. 321 , 74 L.Ed.2d 21 (1982). Nor did the Court in Landon purport to resolve a jurisdictional question raising the possibility of an unconstitutional suspension of the writ of habeas corpus. 1
Despite my uncertainty about Landon’s, dispositive application here, I am convinced that we would reach the same result under step two of Boumediene’s framework. Unlike the petitioners in Boumediene — who sought their release in the face of indefinite detention — Petitioners here seek to alter their status in the United States in the hope of avoiding release to their homelands. That prayer for *451 relief, in my view, dooms the merits of their Suspension Clause argument that 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (e) provides an “inadequate or ineffective” habeas substitute. United States v. Hayman, 342 U.S. 205, 223 , 72 S.Ct. 263 , 96 L.Ed. 232 (1952).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9835789. Public record. Not legal advice.