Election law changes? Our legislation tracker’s got you. Check it out!

Riley v. Bondi

From Ballotpedia
(Redirected from Riley v. Garland)
Jump to: navigation, search

Supreme Court of the United States
Riley v. Bondi
Term: 2024
Important Dates
Argued: March 24, 2025
Decided: June 26, 2025
Outcome
vacated and remanded
Vote
5-4
Majority
Chief Justice John Roberts • Clarence Thomas • Samuel Alito • Brett Kavanaugh • Amy Coney Barrett
Concurring
Clarence Thomas
Dissenting
Sonia Sotomayor • Elena Kagan • Neil Gorsuch • Ketanji Brown Jackson
This article is about the court case previously known as Riley v. Garland; it became Riley v. Bondi when Pam Bondi became the Attorney general of the United States

Riley v. Bondi is a case that was decided by the Supreme Court of the United States on June 26, 2025, during the court's October 2024-2025 term. The case was argued before the Supreme Court of the United States on March 24, 2025.

In a 5-4 opinion, the court vacated and remanded the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, holding that Board of Immigration Appeals orders denying deferral of removal in withholding-only proceedings are not final order of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b). The court also held that The 30-day filing deadline under §1252(b)(1) is a claims-processing rule, not a jurisdictional requirement. Justice Samuel Alito delivered the opinion of the court.[1]

HIGHLIGHTS
  • The issue: The case concerned immigration law 8 U.S.C. § 1252 - Judicial review of orders of removal. Specifically, individuals seeking asylum in the United States who challenge a deportation order to a country they allege will torture or persecute them. Click here to learn more about the case's background.
  • The questions presented: "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."[2]

  • The outcome: In a 5-4 opinion, the court vacated and remanded the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.[1]


    • The case came on a writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. To review the lower court's opinion, click here.

    Background

    Case summary

    The following are the parties to this case:[3]

    The following summary of the case was published by Oyez:[5]

    “ Riley entered the U.S. on a tourist visa in 1995. In 2006, he was indicted and later convicted of marijuana distribution and firearm charges, receiving a 25-year sentence. After being granted compassionate release in January 2021, immigration authorities took him into custody and ordered his removal due to his aggravated felony conviction. Though Riley expressed fear of returning to Jamaica, leading to various proceedings regarding potential persecution and torture claims, he ultimately was only eligible for deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). 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. In Martinez, the U.S. Court Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held that an order denying CAT relief is not a final order of removal for purposes of § 1252(a)(1). Relying on Martinez, the Fourth Circuit dismissed Riley’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction.[6] ”


    To learn more about this case, see the following:

    Timeline

    The following timeline details key events in this case:

    • June 26, 2025: The U.S. Supreme Court vacated and remanded the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.[1]
    • March 24, 2025: The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument.
    • November 4, 2024: The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.
    • May 31, 2024: Pierre Yassue Nashun Riley appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
    • April 26, 2024: The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit concluded that because it lacked jurisdiction, it dismissed Riley’s of petition for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.

    Questions presented

    The petitioner presented the following questions to the court:[2]

    Questions presented:
    “ 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.[6]

    		”

    Oral argument

    Audio

    Audio of oral argument:[7]




    Transcript

    Transcript of oral argument:[8]

    Outcome

    In a 5-4 opinion, the court vacated and remanded the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, holding that Board of Immigration Appeals orders denying deferral of removal in withholding-only proceedings are not final order of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b). The court also held that The 30-day filing deadline under §1252(b)(1) is a claims-processing rule, not a jurisdictional requirement. Justice Samuel Alito delivered the opinion of the court.[1]

    Opinion

    In the court's majority opinion, Justice Samuel Alito wrote:[1]

    “

    Under 8 U. S. C. §1252(b)(1), a petition for review of a ‘final order of removal’ must be filed within 30 days of that order. Riley and the Government argue that Riley’s petition was filed on time because it was filed within 30 days of the BIA order denying deferral of removal, and we must therefore decide whether that order is a ‘final order of removal.’ We conclude that it is not.[6]

    		”
    —Justice Samuel Alito

    Concurring opinion

    Justice Clarence Thomas filed a concurring opinion.

    In his concurring opinion, Justice Thomas wrote:[1]

    “

    The Court today holds that the Fourth Circuit erred in treating the 30-day deadline in 8 U. S. C. §1252(b)(1) as jurisdictional. Ante, at 2. I agree and join the Court’s opinion in full. I write separately to note that the Fourth Circuit may nevertheless lack jurisdiction over this suit for a different reason. Petitioner Pierre Riley sought review of an ‘Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals . . . entered on May 31, 2022.’ 1 App. 42 (emphasis deleted). Today’s opinion makes clear that this May 31 order is not a ‘‘final order of removal.’’ Ante, at 5. Instead, it is an order denying relief under the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT). Congress has specified that federal courts of appeals lack jurisdiction to review CAT orders ‘except as part of the review of a final order of removal.’ §2242, 112 Stat. 2681– 822, note following 8 U. S. C. §1231 (emphasis added). Thus, on remand, the Fourth Circuit should consider whether it has jurisdiction to review a CAT order when the court is not conducting that review ‘as part of the review of a final order of removal.’ [6]

    		”
    —Justice Clarence Thomas

    Dissenting opinion

    Justice Sonia Sotomayor filed an opinion dissenting in part, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Justice Neil Gorsuch joins as to all but Part IV.

    In her dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote:[1]

    “

    Not long ago, this Court described delays in regulatory approvals of construction projects as ‘‘borde[ring] on the Kafkaesque.’’ Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, 605 U. S. ___, ___ (2025) (slip op., at 13). In holding that Riley was required to file his appeal 16 months before the order he sought to challenge existed, the Court surely moves from the border well into the heartland of illogic and absurdity. Respectfully, I dissent.[6]

    		”
    —Justice Sonia Sotomayor

    Text of the opinion

    Read the full opinion here.

    Example

    October term 2024-2025

    See also: Supreme Court cases, October term 2024-2025

    The Supreme Court began hearing cases for the term on October 7, 2024. The court's yearly term begins on the first Monday in October and lasts until the first Monday in October the following year. The court generally releases the majority of its decisions in mid-June.[9]


    See also

    External links

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 Supreme Court of the United States, "Riley v. Bondi," June 26, 2025
    2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 [United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ""U.S. Supreme Court"", ""23-1270 RILEY V. GARLAND"" November 4, 2024]
    3. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "No. 23-1270," accessed November 25, 2024
    4. ↑ Note: When this case was argued, legal counsel was given by then-acting U.S. Solicitor General Sarah Harris.
    5. ↑ Oyez, "Riley v. Garland," accessed November 25, 2024
    6. ↑ 6.0 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    7. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Oral Argument - Audio," argued March 24, 2025
    8. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Oral Argument - Transcript," argued March 24, 2025
    9. ↑ SupremeCourt.gov, "The Supreme Court at Work: The Term and Caseload," accessed January 24, 2022
    Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Riley_v._Bondi&oldid=10422676"