Supreme Court to Consider Case Impacting Deportation Appeals for Illegal Immigrants

November 4, 2024 TruthUSA

Filing deadlines are crucial for noncitizens seeking protection from deportation to countries where they fear persecution or torture.

The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to review a significant deadline affecting certain noncitizens, specifically illegal immigrants seeking protection from deportation to countries where they fear persecution or torture.

The decision could resolve conflicting interpretations among lower courts regarding the strict enforcement of deportation appeals’ timing.

The high court agreed on Nov. 4 to hear a case brought by Pierre Riley, a Jamaican national who overstayed his visa to the United States in 1995.

In 2006, he was sentenced to 25 years in prison for possessing and intending to distribute over 2,000 pounds of marijuana, as well as for possessing a firearm related to the drug offense.

After receiving compassionate release in 2021, Riley was taken into custody by immigration officials. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) promptly issued a deportation order, known as a Final Administrative Removal Order, based on Riley’s aggravated felony conviction.

Claiming he feared violence if returned to Jamaica, Riley applied for relief from the removal order under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), citing a credible fear of persecution or torture at the hands of a criminal who had harmed members of his family.

An initial asylum officer review found that Riley had not demonstrated a reasonable fear, but an immigration judge later granted him protection under CAT, delaying his deportation. DHS challenged the immigration judge’s decision to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), which overturned the immigration judge’s order in May 2022 and commanded Riley’s removal to Jamaica.

Riley then appealed the BIA’s decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. However, the court dismissed his petition, citing lack of jurisdiction, arguing that Riley missed the 30-day deadline set by immigration law. The Fourth Circuit ruled that the 30-day clock started with the original Final Administrative Removal Order issued in January 2021, not with the subsequent BIA decision.

According to the Fourth Circuit’s interpretation, only the original removal order triggers the 30-day appeal period. This ruling led Riley to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

In his appeal filed in May this year, Riley’s attorneys pointed out a split among federal circuits on two crucial issues. The first concerns when the 30-day deadline begins.

Some courts, like the Fourth Circuit, require appeals to be filed within 30 days of the initial removal order. Other circuits allow illegal immigrants and other noncitizens to appeal within 30 days of the BIA’s final decision, especially when that decision concludes the administrative process.

The second issue before the Supreme Court is whether the 30-day deadline is a strict, jurisdictional requirement or simply a procedural “claims-processing” rule that could allow flexibility under certain circumstances. If the deadline is jurisdictional, courts cannot hear late appeals, but if it’s considered a claims-processing rule, exceptions may be possible in some instances.

The Supreme Court’s Nov. 4 docket entry confirms that the justices will focus on these two questions, as presented by the Department of Justice, which represents the government in the case.

“The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted limited to the questions presented by the respondent’s brief. 1. Whether the 30-day deadline in 8 U.S.C. 1252(b)(1) for filing a petition for review of an order of removal is jurisdictional. 2. Whether a noncitizen satisfies the deadline in Section 1252(b)(1) by filing a petition for review challenging an agency order denying withholding of removal or protection under the Convention Against Torture within 30 days of the issuance of that order,” the entry reads.

It is uncertain when the Supreme Court will finalize its review. The case’s outcome could establish a national standard for deportation appeals and impact how cases involving claims of deportation-risk due to harm are handled in federal courts.

If the Supreme Court decides that the 30-day deadline is not jurisdictional, it could provide flexibility in deportation appeals, allowing some cases to be heard despite missing the deadline.

Conversely, if the high court rules that the 30-day period is strictly jurisdictional, illegal immigrants and other noncitizens facing deportation, like those granted asylum or refugee status but committed deportable crimes, may face limitations in accessing judicial review.

Source link