UC Law Journal


Alaine R. Parry


In Landon v. Plasencia, the Supreme Court held that the admissibility of a returning resident alien may be determined in an exclusion hearing if the due process is afforded the alien. The Supreme Court did not, however, specify what process is "due" in such a hearing. This Comment begins by discussing the constitutional status of aliens and the re-entry doctrine developed by the federal courts. The Comment then analyzes the Plasencia decision itself. The Comment suggests, based on similar situations in which the question of due process was addressed, what procedural guidelines should be followed, including notice, burden of proof, confrontation and cross-examination, self-incrimination, right to counsel, and appellate review. While recommending that immigration judges and officials follow these guidelines until the Supreme Court fills the void left by Plasencia, the Comment concludes that legislative action is necessary to clarify the specific due process requirements that must be afforded the returning resident alien.

Included in

Law Commons