The Supreme Court granted certiorari last week in Benitez v. Wallis.  The oral arguments will be heard during the current session, with the final reply brief not due to be filed until April 19, 2004.  The case involves the interpretation of the Supreme Court case Zadvydas v. Davis and the present circuit split concerning this case.

Daniel Benitez, a native and citizen of Cuba, is an inadmissible alien who brought a petition challenging his indefinite detention.  Both the District Court and the 11^th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the INS determinations that Benitez posed a danger to the community and was likely to engage in further violent behavior as facially legitimate and bona fide reasons to detain him until removal to Cuba is possible.

Benitez was paroled into the United States after an attempted entry from the port of Mariel, Cuba, in 1980.  Benitez was then convicted of second-degree grand theft in Florida in 1983.  Thereafter, he applied for lawful permanent resident status.  His application was denied based upon his previous conviction for grand theft, which was determined to be a crime involving moral turpitude. 

In 1993, Benitez pled guilty in Florida state court to armed burglary of a structure, armed burglary of a conveyance, armed robbery, unlawful possession of a firearm while engaged in a criminal offense, carrying a concealed firearm, aggravated battery, and unlawful possession, sale or delivery of a firearm with an altered or removed serial number.  He was sentenced to 20 years in prison. 

At this time, the INS revoked Benitez’s immigration parole, determining that the parole was now against public interest.   In 1994, he was found excludable by an immigration judge and eligible for deportation to Cuba because of his criminal convictions.  He was released into INS custody in 2001.  At this time, he appeared before the Cuban Review Panel, which concluded that Benitez was releasable when he had suitable sponsorship to a halfway house. 

In 2003, the INS revoked Benitez’s Notice of Releaseability without a hearing because they believed that Benitez was involved in a planned jail escape.  Therefore, his current detention stems from his inadmissible alien status, violations of earlier immigration parole and the INS’ determination that he has not refrained from criminal conduct while in custody.