145 S.Ct. 2190
U.S.2025Background
- Pierre Riley, a Jamaican citizen convicted of an aggravated felony in the US, was ordered removed under expedited procedures by DHS in January 2021 via a Final Administrative Review Order (FARO).
- Riley did not contest his removability but sought deferral of removal to Jamaica under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), arguing he'd likely be tortured or killed if returned.
- An immigration officer denied his fear claim, but an Immigration Judge later granted deferral under CAT; DHS appealed, and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) vacated the grant, reinstating removal.
- Riley filed a petition for judicial review in the Fourth Circuit three days after the BIA decision; the petition was filed more than a year after the original removal order.
- The Fourth Circuit dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, holding that (1) review must be sought within 30 days of the FARO, not the BIA's CAT denial, and (2) the statutory deadline was jurisdictional.
- The Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve circuit splits on (a) whether a BIA order in withholding-only (CAT) proceedings is a “final order of removal” for filing, and (b) whether the 30-day deadline is jurisdictional or a claims-processing rule.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is a BIA order denying deferral in withholding-only proceedings a "final order of removal" for filing a petition for review? | Riley: The BIA's CAT order is the relevant final order since it is the last agency action, enabling meaningful review. | Bondi/Government: The FARO is the final order; CAT/withholding proceedings do not affect its finality. | No; the FARO is the "final order of removal" under §1252(b)(1); CAT orders do not make a new final order for review. |
| Is the deadline for filing a petition for review of a final order of removal under §1252(b)(1) jurisdictional or a claims-processing rule? | Riley: The deadline is a claims-processing rule, not jurisdictional; failure to comply can be waived or subject to equitable tolling. | Bondi/Government: The deadline is jurisdictional; missing it deprives the court of power to review the case. | The 30-day deadline is a mandatory claims-processing rule, not jurisdictional. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U.S. 321 (statutory headnote language is not part of the court’s opinion)
- Nasrallah v. Barr, 590 U.S. 573 (CAT orders are not themselves final orders of removal for the purpose of judicial review)
- Johnson v. Guzman Chavez, 594 U.S. 523 (finality of a removal order is not affected by pending withholding-only (CAT) proceedings)
- Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500 (statutory requirements are jurisdictional only if Congress clearly states so)
- Stone v. INS, 514 U.S. 386 (pre-Arbaugh case characterizing deadlines as “jurisdictional” but not dispositive under modern doctrine)
- Santos-Zacaria v. Garland, 598 U.S. 411 (distinguishing “jurisdictional” and “nonjurisdictional but mandatory” rules)
- Reed Elsevier, Inc. v. Muchnick, 559 U.S. 154 (clarifying test for jurisdictionality in statutes)