606 U.S. 259
U.S.2025Background
- Pierre Riley, a Jamaican citizen with a U.S. drug felony conviction, was ordered removed from the U.S. by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) using expedited procedures for aggravated felons.
- Riley did not challenge his removability but sought protection from removal to Jamaica under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), claiming he would be at risk if returned.
- An Immigration Judge found Riley’s CAT claim credible and granted deferral of removal; DHS appealed, and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) vacated that relief, reinstating the removal order.
- Riley filed a petition for review in the Fourth Circuit within 30 days of the BIA’s denial of CAT relief, but the court dismissed it as untimely, ruling the true deadline was 30 days after the original final removal order (FARO).
- The Supreme Court reviewed two main legal questions: whether the 30-day deadline is jurisdictional, and when exactly the final removal order becomes “final” for appeal purposes, especially in the context of withholding-only (CAT) proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Riley's Argument | Bondi's (Govt) Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a BIA denial of CAT relief in withholding-only proceedings is a “final order of removal” for purposes of judicial review | The BIA’s CAT denial is the reviewable final order; 30-day window to appeal begins with this decision | The original FARO is the final order; BIA CAT denial does not reset the deadline | The FARO is the “final order of removal,” not the BIA’s CAT denial. |
| Whether § 1252(b)(1)’s 30-day deadline to petition for review is jurisdictional or a claim-processing rule | The deadline is a claim-processing rule, not jurisdictional; late filings should not bar review unless the government objects | Initially argued it was jurisdictional but ultimately agreed with Riley; did not press dismissal based on the deadline | The 30-day deadline is a mandatory claim-processing rule, not jurisdictional. |
| Can judicial review of a CAT order occur without a petition for review of a final order of removal? | CAT relief should be reviewable whenever sought, regardless of whether coupled with a removal order appeal | Judicial review of a CAT claim must occur as part of review of a final order of removal | Courts of appeals can only review CAT claims as part of review of a final removal order—not on their own. |
| Timing for filing judicial review when there are ongoing withholding-only/CAT proceedings | 30-day clock for review should run from the BIA’s CAT denial | 30-day clock runs from the FARO issuance, even as withholding-only proceedings are ongoing | The 30-day clock runs from when FARO is issued, not from later BIA CAT decisions. |
Key Cases Cited
- Nasrallah v. Barr, 590 U.S. 573 (CAT orders are not final removal orders and do not merge with them for judicial review)
- Johnson v. Guzman Chavez, 594 U.S. 523 (finality of removal orders is not affected by ongoing withholding-only proceedings)
- Stone v. INS, 514 U.S. 386 (earlier, less precise approach to what is jurisdictional in immigration deadlines)
- Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500 (statutory deadlines treated as jurisdictional only when Congress clearly so states)
- Henderson v. Shinseki, 562 U.S. 428 (reluctance to treat procedural rules as jurisdictional without clear statutory command)