The U.S. Supreme Court announced a decision Thursday concerning the deportation of immigrants who have potentially life-threatening circumstances if returned to their country of origin.
In Riley v. Bondi, the question was whether a noncitizen can challenge a denial of protection under the United Nations’ Convention Against Torture (CAT) in a federal appeals court by filing within 30 days of the denial, or if the petition must be filed within 30 days of the initial deportation order, even if the CAT proceedings are still in progress.
Case background
Jamaican national Pierre Yassue Nashun Riley entered the U.S. on a tourist visa in 1998. In 2006, he was charged with the distribution of marijuana and firearms charges, resulting in a 25-year sentence.
At the beginning of 2021, Riley was granted compassionate release, but was taken into custody by immigration enforcement and ordered to be removed from the U.S. due to his felony convictions.
Despite expressing fear of danger to his life if returned to Jamaica, “he ultimately was only eligible for deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture,” per Oyez. “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.”
At that proceeding, the immigration judge found Riley credible and granted deferral of removal to Jamaica under the CAT. The Department of Homeland Security then appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals, which dismissed the immigration judge’s ruling.
Three days later, Riley filed a petition for review in the 4th Circuit.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit ultimately dismissed Riley’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction, arguing that a ruling denying CAT relief is grounds for a final order of removal.
“The Fourth Circuit dismissed Riley’s petition for lack of jurisdiction, holding that (1) aliens cannot obtain review of BIA decisions in “withholding-only” proceedings by filing within 30 days of that decision, and (2) §1252(b)(1)’s 30-day filing deadline is jurisdictional, not merely a mandatory claimsprocessing rule," per the Supreme Court ruling.
Supreme Court ruling
In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court gave the opinion that Riley waited too long to combat his removal order.
“After receiving his removal order, Riley told an asylum officer that a powerful drug dealer affiliated with the Jamaican Government had been targeting his family and had murdered two of his cousins,” according to the court’s ruling. “Riley feared that he, too, would be killed upon his return to Jamaica. The officer found Riley ‘credible,’ but nonetheless concluded he was ineligible for CAT relief.”
Justice Samuel Alito wrote in the opinion, “that a BIA order in a withholding-only proceeding is not a ‘final order of removal,’ and therefore the 30-day filing deadline cannot be satisfied by filing a petition for review within 30 days of the BIA’s withholding-only order.”
The “FARO is the final order of removal in this case, and withholding-only proceedings do not disturb the finality of an otherwise final order of removal,” he added.
Alito was supported in his written opinion by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Amy Coney Barrett and Brett Kavanaugh. A dissenting opinion was given by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who was joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson.
“Should Riley have appealed the Board’s order denying deferral of removal before the Board issued it? The answer ought to be easy. Yet the majority today renders the statute incoherent, holding that Riley should have appealed the order one year and three months before the Board entered it,” the dissenting opinion stated.
“One should not be required to appeal an order before it exists. ... Incomprehensibly, the Court disagrees.”