The question
Whether the 30-day deadline in 8 U.S.C. section 1252(b)(1) to petition for review of a final order of removal is jurisdictional, and whether an alien can satisfy that deadline by filing within 30 days of a Board of Immigration Appeals decision in a withholding-only proceeding.
Riley v. Bondi
What the Court decided
The Court vacated the Fourth Circuit's dismissal and remanded. It held that a BIA order denying deferral of removal in a withholding-only proceeding is not a final order of removal under section 1252(b)(1), so the 30-day filing clock runs from the earlier final administrative review order, not from the later BIA withholding-only decision. It separately held that the 30-day deadline is a claims-processing rule, not a jurisdictional requirement. Because the Government chose not to seek dismissal on the untimeliness ground, the case may proceed on remand.
How the justices split
5-4The Court's opinion in part
Alito, joined by Roberts, Thomas, Kavanaugh, Barrett, Sotomayor, Kagan, Gorsuch, Jackson
The opinion held that the final administrative review order issued by DHS is the final order of removal, because it concluded that Riley was deportable and directed his removal, and it became final immediately upon issuance since a streamlined alien cannot seek review of a FARO before an IJ or the BIA. It reasoned that a BIA order in a withholding-only proceeding is therefore not a final order of removal and cannot start the 30-day clock, relying on Nasrallah v. Barr and Johnson v. Guzman Chavez that CAT and withholding rulings do not disturb the finality of a removal order. It separately held, in Part II-B joined by all nine justices, that the 30-day deadline in section 1252(b)(1) is a claims-processing rule and not jurisdictional because the text directs aliens rather than courts, does not reference jurisdiction, and sits outside any jurisdictional provision, and that this classification follows from Arbaugh v. Y and H Corp. and later cases.
Concurring
Thomas, writing alone
Thomas filed a concurring opinion. The syllabus does not state its reasoning.
Dissenting in part
Sotomayor, joined by Kagan, Jackson, Gorsuch
Sotomayor filed an opinion dissenting in part, joined in full by Kagan and Jackson and joined by Gorsuch except as to Part IV. These justices joined the Court's holding that the 30-day deadline is a claims-processing rule rather than jurisdictional but did not join the holding that a BIA order in a withholding-only proceeding is not a final order of removal for purposes of the filing deadline. The syllabus does not state the further reasoning of the dissent.
How we know · 5 sourced claims
The final administrative review order issued by DHS on January 26, 2021 is the final order of removal under the statute because it held that Riley was deportable and directed that he be removed.
Source: syllabus, Held
BIA orders denying deferral of removal in withholding-only proceedings are not final orders of removal under section 1252(b)(1).
Source: syllabus, Held
The 30-day filing deadline under section 1252(b)(1) is a claims-processing rule, not a jurisdictional requirement.
Source: syllabus, Held
Alito delivered the opinion of the Court, joined in full by Roberts, Thomas, Kavanaugh, and Barrett, and joined only as to Part II-B by Sotomayor, Kagan, Gorsuch, and Jackson.
Source: syllabus, lineup
Sotomayor filed an opinion dissenting in part, joined in full by Kagan and Jackson and joined by Gorsuch except as to Part IV.
Source: syllabus, lineup