Facts of the Case

Provided by Oyez

Mr. Velázquez, a Mexican citizen, entered the U.S. without authorization in 2005. In 2011, the Department of Homeland Security sought to remove him and served a deficient Notice to Appear that lacked time and place details. In 2013, Velázquez admitted to unlawful entry and sought withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture. In March 2019, an Immigration Judge denied these requests but granted voluntary departure within 60 days. Velázquez appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), which dismissed his appeal in October 2021 and reinstated the 60-day voluntary departure period.

On December 13, 2021, Velázquez filed a motion to reopen his case to apply for cancellation of removal, arguing he had accrued 10 years of continuous presence due to his deficient Notice to Appear. The BIA denied this motion, finding Velázquez had not asserted “new facts” and that the motion was untimely, filed after the 60-day voluntary departure period. Velázquez then filed a motion to reconsider, challenging only the timeliness determination, which the BIA also denied. Velázquez filed a petition for review in federal court, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied review, concluding that Mr. Velázquez failed to voluntarily depart or file an administrative motion within 60 calendar days, the maximum period provided by statute. 8 U.S.C. § 1229c(b)(2).

Questions

  1. When a noncitizen’s voluntary-departure period ends on a weekend or public holiday, is a motion to reopen filed the next business day sufficient to avoid the penalties for failure to depart under 8 U.S.C. § 1229c(d)(1)?

Conclusions

  1. Under 8 U.S.C. §1229c(b)(2), when a voluntary-departure deadline falls on a weekend or a legal holiday, the deadline extends to the next business day. Justice Neil Gorsuch authored the 5-4 opinion of the Court, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson.

    The term “60 days” in §1229c(b)(2) carries a specialized legal meaning, not simply counting calendar days. In legal contexts, deadlines typically roll over when they land on nonbusiness days, and since at least the 1950s, immigration regulations have incorporated that practice. Congress enacted §1229c(b)(2) within the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 amid this longstanding regulatory background. Other deadlines enacted in the same statutory section also follow the specialized meaning of “days,” and the government concedes that those deadlines extend past weekends and holidays. It is presumed that identical terms in the same section of a law carry the same meaning unless Congress indicates otherwise, which it did not here.

    Arguments suggesting that voluntary departure deadlines should be treated differently from other filing deadlines are unavailing. The text and regulatory history do not support any distinction between “procedural” and “substantive” actions, nor does the fact that Congress newly set a 60-day limit rather than adopting an existing regulatory timeframe. Applying the specialized legal understanding of “days” ensures consistency with both regulatory history and the statutory structure. Thus, Monsalvo Velázquez’s voluntary departure deadline, which fell on a Saturday, lawfully extended to the following Monday.

    Justice Clarence Thomas filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Samuel Alito joined, and Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett joined in part.

    Justices Alito and Barrett each filed separate dissenting opinions, and Justice Kavanaugh joined each of them.