Main Content

Casebook Read Credits
Immigration Law
Resource 11 . 4
18 minutes

Landon v. Plasencia

Peter Spiro

Note that the Court here is not pretending that Plasencia never left the country, in contrast to its reasoning in Chew. How does the Court distinguish this case from Mezei? Note the application of the balancing test from Mathews v. Eldridge. How does that test help us critically consider Knauff and Mezei?

Although the Court did not find that the procedures extended Plasencia were constitutionally inadequate, a lower court did so find on remand. Do you see why Mathews v. Eldridge would point to that result? By statute, the INA now requires at least 10 days' notice before the commencement of removal proceedings as well as notice of the availability of pro bono counsel. See section 239(b).

Supreme Court of the United States
459 U.S. 21, 74 L. Ed. 2d 21, 103 S. Ct. 321, 1982 U.S. LEXIS 164, SCDB 1982-004
No. 81-129
1982-11-15

This book, and all H2O books, are Creative Commons licensed for sharing and re-use with the exception of certain excerpts. Any excerpts from the Restatements of the Law, Principles of the Law, and the Model Penal Code are copyright by The American Law Institute. Excerpts are reproduced with permission, not as part of a Creative Commons license.