In the 1982 case of Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Miranda, the United States Supreme Court dealt with issues related to immigration law and deportation proceedings. The respondent, a native of Panama who had been living in the U.S., was ordered to be deported after he was convicted for selling heroin. He appealed this decision on grounds that his constitutional rights were violated because he wasn't informed about available free legal services during his deportation hearing. However, the Supreme Court ruled against him stating that there is no requirement under due process clause or federal regulations mandating such notification by an immigration judge during a deportation proceeding. Therefore, failure to inform him did not constitute as violation of his constitutional rights nor did it render his hearing fundamentally unfair.

In the dissenting opinion for Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Miranda, it was argued that the majority's decision to deny relief under Section 212(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act to lawful permanent residents who temporarily left the country is inconsistent with both legislative intent and previous court rulings. The dissent emphasized that Congress intended this provision as a form of discretionary relief for all legal aliens facing deportation, not just those who never left U.S. soil. Furthermore, they pointed out that prior decisions have upheld this interpretation, allowing returning resident aliens to apply for Section 212(c) waivers even if their criminal convictions occurred abroad or after brief trips outside America. Therefore, in denying Mr. Miranda such an opportunity based on his short visit home to Mexico before reentering illegally into California undermines these precedents while also contradicting statutory purpose.