## Facts

- Maria Antonieta Plasencia, a lawful permanent resident admitted in 1972 and married to a U.S. citizen, took a brief trip to Mexico in June 1975.
- On her return at the Southern California border, immigration officers discovered six undocumented aliens hidden in her car and suspected her of assisting their unlawful entry.
- The Immigration and Naturalization Service placed her in an exclusion proceeding under INA §§ 235–236 to determine admissibility.
- An immigration judge ordered her excluded and deported, finding she knowingly aided and abetted illegal entry.

## Issues

1. Whether the INA required the government to use deportation proceedings, rather than exclusion proceedings, to determine the admissibility of a returning lawful permanent resident after a brief trip abroad.
2. Whether a returning lawful permanent resident may invoke the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause in exclusion proceedings, and, if so, what process is due.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court held that the INA permits the government to determine a returning lawful permanent resident’s admissibility in an exclusion proceeding.
- The Court rejected the argument that it is impermissibly “circular” for an immigration judge in an exclusion case to decide facts bearing on both threshold “entry” questions and the merits.
- The Court held that a returning lawful permanent resident is entitled to due process protections in exclusion proceedings.
- The Court remanded for the court of appeals to determine, under the correct constitutional standard, whether the procedures afforded in Plasencia’s exclusion hearing satisfied due process.

## Legal Principles

- Under INA §§ 235–236, admissibility for “all aliens” seeking admission or readmission may be decided through exclusion procedures, including for lawful permanent residents returning from abroad.
- A returning lawful permanent resident has a different constitutional status than a first-time applicant for admission and may not be deprived of liberty without due process of law.
- The adequacy of immigration procedures is assessed by a circumstance-specific balancing of (1) the individual’s interests, (2) the risk of erroneous deprivation and likely value of added safeguards, and (3) the government’s interests in border administration.
- Courts assess whether procedures meet the “essential standard of fairness” required by the Due Process Clause; due process does not automatically require the procedural features of deportation proceedings.

## Conclusion

The Court ruled that the INA authorizes exclusion proceedings to decide the admissibility of a returning lawful permanent resident, while also recognizing that such a resident is entitled to Fifth Amendment due process at the border; it remanded for evaluation of whether the hearing procedures provided were constitutionally sufficient.


Landon v. Plasencia, 459 U.S. 21 (1982)