Facts of the Case

Provided by Oyez

Riley entered the U.S. on a tourist visa in 1995. In 2006, he was indicted and later convicted of marijuana distribution and firearm charges, receiving a 25-year sentence. After being granted compassionate release in January 2021, immigration authorities took him into custody and ordered his removal due to his aggravated felony conviction. Though Riley expressed fear of returning to Jamaica, leading to various proceedings regarding potential persecution and torture claims, he ultimately was only eligible for deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). While an immigration judge initially granted this relief, the Board of Immigration Appeals reversed the decision in May 2022 and ordered Riley’s removal to Jamaica. Riley petitioned for review, and his case was temporarily held pending the resolution of Martinez v. Garland. In Martinez, the U.S. Court Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held that an order denying CAT relief is not a final order of removal for purposes of § 1252(a)(1). Relying on Martinez, the Fourth Circuit dismissed Riley’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

Questions

  1. Is 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1)’s 30-day deadline jurisdictional, or merely a mandatory claims-processing rule that can be waived or forfeited? 

  2. Can a person obtain review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision in a withholding-only proceeding by filing a petition within 30 days of that decision?

Conclusions

  1. The 30-day filing deadline in §1252(b)(1) is a mandatory claims-processing rule, not a jurisdictional requirement, and the BIA's order denying Convention Against Torture (CAT) relief in a withholding-only proceeding is not a “final order of removal” for purposes of triggering this deadline. Justice Samuel Alito authored the 5-4 majority opinion of the Court.

    An “order of removal” is defined as an order “concluding that the alien is deportable or ordering deportation,” which becomes final either when the BIA affirms it or when the time to appeal to the BIA expires. In streamlined removal proceedings for aliens convicted of aggravated felonies, the Final Administrative Removal Order (FARO) issued by DHS constitutes the final order of removal because it conclusively determines deportability and commands removal. Since aliens in these proceedings cannot appeal the FARO to an Immigration Judge or the BIA, the order becomes final immediately upon issuance. The Court’s precedents in Nasrallah v. Barr and Johnson v. Guzman Chavez establish that CAT orders do not disturb the finality of removal orders; they address only whether removal to a specific country is permissible, not whether the alien is removable from the United States.

    Regarding jurisdiction, courts should treat statutory limitations as jurisdictional only when Congress “clearly states” such intent. Section 1252(b)(1) contains no reference to jurisdiction, provides directives to litigants rather than courts, and is not placed within sections of the statute concerning jurisdiction. The Court’s precedents since Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp. have consistently found that filing deadlines are not jurisdictional unless Congress provides an exceptionally clear signal otherwise.

    Justice Clarence Thomas authored a concurring opinion suggesting the Fourth Circuit should consider whether it has jurisdiction to review a CAT order when not conducting review of a final order of removal. 

    Justice Sonia Sotomayor authored an opinion dissenting in part, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, and by Justice Neil Gorsuch except as to Part IV, arguing that removal orders should not become final until withholding-only proceedings are complete.