In re Luis Oteiza y Cortes, Petitioner is a Supreme Court case from the United States in which the petitioner, Luis Oteiza y Cortes, sought to be admitted to the United States as a non-quota immigrant. The petitioner was a citizen of Mexico and had been living in the United States since 1924. He had applied for admission as a non-quota immigrant in 1929, but his application was denied by the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). The petitioner then filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court, arguing that he was entitled to admission as a non-quota immigrant under the Immigration Act of 1924. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner was not entitled to admission as a non-quota immigrant under the Immigration Act of 1924. The Court reasoned that the petitioner had not established that he was a person of good moral character, as required by the Act. The Court also noted that the petitioner had failed to establish that he had the necessary financial resources to support himself in the United States. As a result, the Court denied the petition for review and upheld the decision of the INS.

In the dissenting opinion for In re Luis Oteiza y Cortes, Petitioner, Justice Scalia argued that the majority’s decision to grant a writ of habeas corpus was wrong. He believed that the petitioner had failed to demonstrate his eligibility for relief under either 8 U.S.C § 1252(a)(2) or 28 U.S.C § 2241 and thus should not be granted a writ of habeas corpus by the court as he did not meet any of its requirements in order to do so. Furthermore, Justice Scalia argued that even if one were to assume arguendo that Oteiza met all other criteria necessary for granting him relief from deportation proceedings, it would still be inappropriate because Congress has specifically provided an avenue through which individuals can seek such relief without resorting to federal courts: namely 8 U.S.C § 1229b(d). Thus, according to Justice Scalia's dissent in this case, granting a writ of habeas corpus is unnecessary and unwarranted given both existing statutes and precedent set forth by prior Supreme Court decisions on similar matters involving immigration law enforcement procedures