The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) recently urged the Supreme Court to clarify that the 30-day deadline for noncitizens to appeal removal orders should begin after administrative proceedings conclude, not from the issuance of initial removal orders. The DOJ’s brief, filed on Friday, argued that this interpretation aligns with the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and supports judicial review in immigration cases.
This position arose in the context of a Fourth Circuit ruling, where the court dismissed a Jamaican man’s petition as untimely, claiming it lacked jurisdiction to review the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision that denied him withholding of removal.
Riley’s Case and the Fourth Circuit Ruling
Pierre Yassue Nashun Riley, the petitioner, filed his appeal within 30 days of the BIA’s decision, which finalized his removal order for judicial review purposes. Despite this, the Fourth Circuit ruled against Riley, suggesting he should have appealed the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) January 2021 removal order issued shortly after his release from federal prison. Riley was previously convicted of drug and firearm offenses, rendering him removable under U.S. immigration law.
An immigration judge initially found Riley credible in his claim of fearing persecution or torture in Jamaica, citing threats from a drug kingpin connected to the government. However, the BIA later overturned this decision, deeming his evidence speculative. The Fourth Circuit upheld the BIA’s decision due to Riley’s supposed failure to meet the appeal timeline.
Circuit Split and Implications
The case highlights a broader circuit split on when the 30-day window for appeals begins. While some circuits allow appeals within 30 days of the BIA’s final decision, the Second and Fourth Circuits interpret the timeline as starting from the initial removal order. This inconsistency has created significant uncertainty for noncitizens facing removal, prompting the Supreme Court’s involvement.
Riley and the DOJ both argue that the Fourth Circuit misapplied the Supreme Court’s 1995 decision in Stone v. INS, which, according to Riley, made only a passing reference to appeal time limits being jurisdictional. Instead, both parties cite the 2023 Supreme Court ruling in Santos-Zacaria v. Garland, which clarified that related INA provisions are not jurisdictional.
Humanitarian and Legal Considerations
Riley’s case underscores the tension between immigration enforcement and humanitarian obligations. Court documents reveal that Riley, who arrived in the U.S. on a tourist visa in 1995 and has seven U.S. citizen children, faces credible threats of torture or death if returned to Jamaica. The DOJ emphasized the U.S.’s commitment to international principles, including the prohibition against returning individuals to countries where they risk persecution or torture.
Looking Ahead: Supreme Court’s Potential Impact
The Supreme Court’s decision in Riley v. Garland could resolve the conflicting interpretations among circuit courts, ensuring a uniform standard for the 30-day appeal window. A ruling in favor of Riley could reaffirm judicial review rights for noncitizens and clarify procedural timelines, offering greater consistency in immigration appeals.
The outcome could also influence future cases where administrative and judicial review timelines intersect, particularly in high-stakes immigration matters involving claims of persecution or torture.
To stay updated and informed, watch our news section or drop your immigration queries on immigration question and get responses from professional attorneys.
