Nasrallah v Barr - Post-Argument SCOTUScast

On March 2, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court heard argument in Nasrallah v Barr, a case involving a dispute over the scope of judicial review applicable to removal orders for noncitizens who have committed certain crimes.

After Kidal Khalid Nasrallah, a Lebanese citizen, pled guilty to receiving stolen property, the federal government sought to remove him to Lebanon.  Although he was ordered removed, the Immigration Judge granted Nasrallah relief under the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT), on the grounds that Hezbollah had tortured him in the past and would do so again were he returned to Lebanon.  The Board of Immigration Appeals, however, disagreed and vacated the Immigration Judge’s CAT relief.  Nasrallah then petitioned for review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, but that court held that under federal immigration law, judicial review of factual challenges to a CAT order was not available to noncitizens like Nasrallah who had been convicted of certain crimes. The Supreme Court then granted certiorari to consider whether the federal circuit courts nevertheless possess jurisdiction to review factual findings underlying denials of withholding (and deferral) of removal relief.

 

To discuss the case, we have Trevor Ezell, Adjunct Professor at University of Texas School of Law and Assistant Attorney General in Texas.

As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.