Santos-Zacaria v. Garland

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
New Administrative State Banner.png
Supreme Court of the United States
Santos-Zacaria v. Garland
Term: 2022
Important Dates
Argued: January 17, 2023
Decided: May 11, 2023
Outcome
United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit vacated in part and remanded
Vote
9-0
Majority
Chief Justice John Roberts • Ketanji Brown Jackson • Sonia Sotomayor • Elena Kagan • Neil Gorsuch • Brett Kavanaugh • Amy Coney Barrett
Concurring
Samuel Alito • Clarence Thomas

Santos-Zacaria v. Garland was a U.S. Supreme Court case decided on May 11, 2023, concerning the question of whether a U.S. Circuit Court may exercise jurisdiction over an immigration case that has not first been appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals. The court unanimously held that Title 8 of the United States Code, section 1252(d)(1) is not a jurisdictional provision and that immigrant petitioners are not required to seek a motion to reconsider.

HIGHLIGHTS
  • The issue: The case concerned immigration law and whether a court of appeals can review an immigrant’s petition that the Board of Immigration Appeals participated in impermissible fact finding because the immigrant did not claim this in a motion of reconsideration. Click here to learn more about the case's background.
  • The questions presented: "(1) Whether Section 1252(d)(1)'s exhaustion requirement is jurisdictional, or merely a mandatory claims processing rule that may be waived or forfeited. (2) Whether, to satisfy Section 1252(d)(1)'s exhaustion requirement, a noncitizen who challenges a new error introduced by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) must first ask the agency to exercise its discretion to reopen or reconsider."[1]
  • The outcome: The U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously that Title 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1) is not a jurisdictional provision and that immigrant petitioners are not required to seek a motion to reconsider. It vacated in part and remanded the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.


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

    Why it matters: The primary question considered by the U.S. Supreme Court during oral argument was the conceptual question of administrative exhaustion requirements, which require a litigant to complete the procedural steps in an agency’s in-house adjudication process before appealing to an Article III federal court. The ruling in the case clarified that the administrative exhaustion requirement for judicial review is not jurisdictional.

    Timeline

    The following timeline details key events in this case:

    Background

    Estrella Santos-Zacaria, a Guatemalan transgender woman, came to the United States in 2008 and sought to remain in the country permanently under an immigration rule that gives protection to immigrants if they can show proof that they are or will be persecuted in their country of origin due to “race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group or political opinion.” The immigration judge assigned to the case denied Santos-Zacaria’s asylum application, arguing that Santos-Zacaria’s prior assault was insufficient to show that persecution would continue in the future. Santos-Zacaria petitioned the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) to review the decision. The BIA determined that Santos-Zacaria was entitled to the presumption of future persecution on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity, but denied Santos-Zacaria’s appeal arguing that the government had successfully demonstrated that future persecution was unlikely.

    Santos-Zacaria appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit and argued that the BIA was not authorized to perform fact-finding regarding the likelihood of persecution in Guatemala. Santos Zacaria also argued that the BIA did not show a clear probability (in violation of the clear probability standard) and that fact-finding should have been deferred to the immigration judge.

    The Fifth Circuit Court did not decide whether the BIA correctly applied the clear probability standard but determined that Santos-Zacaria failed to follow the proper immigration procedures because Santos-Zacaria appealed to a federal court before first referring the claim to the BIA. The Fifth Circuit Court argued that it did not have jurisdiction over the case because Santos-Zacaria did not go through the proper channels. Santos-Zacaria appealed the decision to the United States Supreme Court. The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari on October 3, 2022. [3]

    Questions presented

    The petitioner presented the following questions to the court:[1]

    Questions presented:
    “ (1) Whether Section 1252(d)(1)'s exhaustion requirement is jurisdictional, or merely a mandatory claims processing rule that may be waived or forfeited.

    (2) Whether, to satisfy Section 1252(d)(1)'s exhaustion requirement, a noncitizen who challenges a new error introduced by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) must first ask the agency to exercise its discretion to reopen or reconsider.[4]

    		”

    Oral argument

    The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument on January 17, 2023.

    Audio

    Audio of oral argument:[5]



    Transcript

    Transcript of oral argument:[6]

    Outcome

    The court ruled unanimously that Title 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1) is not a jurisdictional provision and that immigrants are not required to seek a motion to reconsider. It vacated in part and remanded the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

    Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson delivered the opinion of the court. Justice Samuel Alito delivered a concurring opinion, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas.[7]

    Opinion

    Opinion of the court

    Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson delivered the opinion of the court, which argued that Title 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1) is not a jurisdictional provision. Jackson argued that immigrant petitioners are not required to seek a motion to reconsider, but rather must seek remedies that are available as a matter of right:[8]

    “ Conceding that it 'would be inconsistent with' the design of the statute to require noncitizens to always file a motion to reconsider for exhaustion purposes, the Government instead would require such a motion only sometimes: when the noncitizen is raising an issue not previously presented to the agency. Brief for Respondent 36–37. According to the Government, a noncitizen must give the agency an opportunity to consider an issue before raising it in court. So in the Government’s view, a motion to reconsider is required when it is the only remaining mechanism for presenting a new issue, but not when the noncitizen has already presented every issue to the agency in other ways.


    That is not the scheme Congress adopted. Section 1252(d)(1) does not require noncitizens to give the agency an opportunity to consider an objection using every mechanism available. It requires exhausting only administrative remedies 'available . . . as of right.' And we do not see how seeking reconsideration can qualify sometimes and not others. Instead, for the reasons already explained, it does not qualify at all. Supra, at 12–16.[8][4]

    		”

    Concurring opinion

    Justice Samuel Alito delivered a concurring opinion, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas. Alito agreed with the majority decision that stated that immigrant petitioners are not required to seek a motion to reconsider, however, he argued against the determination that Title 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1) is not jurisdictional:[8]

    “ I agree with the Court that 8 U. S. C. §1252(d)(1) does not require the filing of a motion for reconsideration under the circumstances presented here. That provision requires the exhaustion of those administrative remedies that are 'available to [an] alien as of right,' but the decision to grant reconsideration is discretionary. 8 CFR §1003.2(a) (2022). Because that determination disposes of this case, I would not decide whether §1252(d)(1) is jurisdictional with respect to the administrative remedies to which it does apply.[8][4] ”

    Text of the opinion

    Read the full opinion here.

    October term 2022-2023

    See also: Supreme Court cases, October term 2022-2023

    The Supreme Court began hearing cases for the term on October 3, 2022. 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 U.S. Supreme Court, "QP REPORT 21-1436 SANTOS-ZACARIA V. GARLAND," October 3, 2022
    2. ↑ SCOTUSblog, "Santos-Zacaria v. Garland," accessed May 15, 2023
    3. ↑ ‘’Cornell Law,’’ ‘’Santos-Zacaria v. Garland,’’ accessed February 1, 2023
    4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    5. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Oral Argument - Audio," argued January 17, 2023
    6. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Oral Argument - Transcript," argued January 17, 2023
    7. ↑ Oyez, "Santos-Zacaria v. Garland," accessed May 15, 2023
    8. ↑ 8.0 8.1 8.2 8.3 Justia, "Santos-Zacaria v. Garland, 598 U.S. _ (2023)," accessed May 15, 2023
    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=Santos-Zacaria_v._Garland&oldid=9182481"