Supreme Court Tightens Immigrants’ Path to Challenge Deportation Orders

The Supreme Court delivered a significant ruling on Thursday, dismissing the case of an immigrant contesting his potential deportation due to fears of persecution. In a 5-4 decision, the Court determined that Pierre Riley, a Jamaican immigrant, failed to file his challenge within the required timeline.

Justice Samuel Alito, who authored the majority opinion, highlighted that Riley needed to petition the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) within 30 days following a final administrative review order by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The delay arose because Riley submitted his challenge only after the BIA denied him relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).

Alito emphasized that a BIA order in a withholding-only proceeding does not constitute a “final order of removal.” As such, the 30-day deadline for filing a petition cannot be met by waiting for a withholding-only order. This decision sends the case back to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals but does not initiate immediate deportation proceedings for Riley.

The Court addressed the validity of the Fourth Circuit’s prior ruling, which stated that the BIA’s denial of protection under CAT was not a final removal order, thereby misapplying the 30-day deadline to Riley’s original removal order.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented, joined by Justices Elena Kagan, Ketanji Brown Jackson, and partially by Neil Gorsuch. She criticized the majority for creating “an incoherent judicial review rule,” questioning the timeline for when Riley was required to file his petition.

The complexity of the timeline evident in Sotomayor’s dissent draws attention to fundamental issues of procedure. “One should not be required to appeal an order before it exists,” she asserted, emphasizing the confusion surrounding the obligations placed on Riley.

Riley’s journey to this point began in 1995 when he entered the United States on a tourist visa and later became involved in a drug trafficking organization. After a conviction for conspiracy related to over 1,000 kilograms of marijuana, he received a 25-year prison sentence, which was reduced in 2021 due to health concerns tied to diabetes and the Covid-19 pandemic.

Upon release, DHS sought to deport him based on his criminal history, prompting Riley to argue he would be persecuted if returned to Jamaica. In court, he recounted chilling threats from a drug kingpin linked to the Jamaican government who had previously harmed his family.

Initially, an immigration judge deemed Riley eligible for CAT relief, but this was overturned by the BIA, which prompted further legal challenges and discussions about the appropriate timelines for appeals.

Sotomayor’s dissent underscores concerns regarding the implications of the ruling on immigrant rights and expedited removal. She warned that the decision could lead to “chaos” in the judicial process for those facing deportation, particularly regarding confusing timelines for filing appeals.

By asserting that Riley’s appeal needed to be filed before an order he aimed to challenge was even issued, the majority’s decision raises profound questions about due process in immigration proceedings, a topic that remains contentious in the legal landscape.