Nasrallah v. Barr, 140 S. Ct. 1683

Petitioner Nidal Nasrallah, a Lebanese national and lawful permanent resident, pleaded guilty in 2013 to receiving stolen property and was sentenced to 364 days in prison.
The Government initiated removal proceedings; Nasrallah applied for protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), alleging past torture by Hezbollah and a likelihood of future torture if returned to Lebanon.
The Immigration Judge found Nasrallah removable but granted CAT relief; the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) reversed, vacated CAT relief, and ordered removal to Lebanon.
The Eleventh Circuit refused to review Nasrallah’s factual challenges to the BIA’s CAT determination, applying precedent that treated CAT factual-review claims as barred by 8 U.S.C. §1252(a)(2)(C).
The Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve a circuit split and held that §§1252(a)(2)(C) and (D) do not bar judicial review of factual challenges to CAT orders; such review is available in the courts of appeals under the deferential substantial-evidence standard.

Issue	Nasrallah's Argument	Barr's Argument	Held
Whether §§1252(a)(2)(C) and (D) bar judicial review of factual challenges to CAT orders for criminal aliens	CAT orders are not "final orders of removal" and thus not covered by the statutory bar	CAT factual review should be treated like factual review of final removal orders and therefore barred	Not barred; courts of appeals may review factual challenges to CAT orders
Whether CAT orders merge into the final order of removal (i.e., affect its validity)	CAT orders are distinct and do not affect the validity of the final removal order	CAT rulings arising in removal proceedings merge into the final order and are covered by the bar	Do not merge; CAT orders are separate for purposes of the statutory bar
Applicable standard for judicial review of factual challenges to CAT orders	Substantial-evidence review (highly deferential)	Government urged no factual review or otherwise limited review	Substantial-evidence standard applies (§1252(b)(4)(B))
Whether precedent or statutory scheme forecloses appellate jurisdiction over CAT claims	Foti’s broad definition of “final order” is outdated; FARRA and the REAL ID Act authorize appellate review of CAT claims	Foti supports treating CAT orders as covered; jurisdiction comes only from review of final removal orders	Foti is not controlling here; FARRA and the REAL ID Act permit direct review of CAT orders in courts of appeals

INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919 (1983) (describing which rulings "merge" into the final order because they affect its validity)
Foti v. INS, 375 U.S. 217 (1963) (earlier, broader interpretation of "final orders of deportation" not controlling after statutory changes)
Calcano-Martinez v. INS, 533 U.S. 348 (2001) (definition of "final order of removal")
INS v. St. Cyr, 533 U.S. 289 (2001) (addressing district-court habeas review and prompting later statutory clarification)
Kenyeres v. Ashcroft, 538 U.S. 1301 (2003) (in-chambers recognition of the substantial-evidence standard for similar immigration fact findings)
INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478 (1992) (applying deferential review to agency factfinding in persecution/withholding contexts)
Reno v. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Comm., 525 U.S. 471 (1999) (interpreting the zipper clause that consolidates review of issues arising from removal proceedings)
Kucana v. Holder, 558 U.S. 233 (2010) (discussing limits on review of discretionary immigration determinations)