Riley v. Bondi, Docket No. 23-1270
Listen to the episode on Spotify
Here’s a case that turns on a fine detail in immigration law. The justices decided that when the Board of Immigration Appeals says no to delaying someone’s deportation, that decision isn’t treated as a final removal order you can challenge right away.
The Court also clarified that the 30-day window to ask a court to review a removal decision is a processing deadline, not a hard limit that bars the court’s power if you miss it. In other words, missing that deadline doesn’t automatically shut the door on your review.
Because of these points, the Supreme Court wiped out the Fourth Circuit’s dismissal of Riley’s petition for review and sent the case back for another look.
Summary of the Case
Pierre Riley, a Jamaican national, entered the United States in 1995 on a tourist visa, overstayed, and later pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute marijuana and related firearms charges—convictions qualifying as aggravated felonies. Upon his release from prison in January 2021, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) initiated expedited removal, issuing on January 26, 2021, a Final Administrative Removal Order (FARO) finding Riley deportable and ordering removal to Jamaica.
Riley didn't contest his deportability but sought relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), claiming that a Jamaican drug kingpin—backed by corrupt officials—posed a credible threat to his life. An Immigration Judge found Riley credible and granted him protection under CAT; however, DHS appealed, and on May 31, 2022, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) vacated the Immigration Judge's decision and reinstated the removal order.
Riley filed a petition for review in the Fourth Circuit three days after the BIA's decision. That court dismissed his case, reasoning that (1) the FARO was the "final order of removal" and the 30-day deadline to appeal it had expired in February 2021; and (2) this 30-day filing deadline was jurisdictional, meaning the court had no power to hear the case.
Opinion of the Court
Justice Alito, writing for a 5–4 Court, reversed the Fourth Circuit's decision. First, the Court held that only an order determining that someone is deportable or ordering deportation may constitute a "final order of removal." The FARO of January 26, 2021, was that order. A CAT protection order is not a removal order because it neither finds deportability nor commands deportation; it "does not affect the validity" of a prior removal order. Because Riley didn't file his petition within 30 days of the FARO, he missed the deadline relative to that final order.
Second, the Court held that the 30-day filing requirement is a claims-processing rule—not a jurisdictional prerequisite. Without a "clear" statement from Congress, time limits "telling aliens what to do to obtain judicial review" don't limit a court's power to hear a case. The relevant law lacks any reference to a court's "power," and its placement amid non-jurisdictional provisions shows that it governs only litigant conduct. Because the Government didn't seek dismissal on this ground, Riley's petition may proceed on remand.
Separate Opinions
Justice Thomas concurred in the judgment but noted that Riley's petition challenged only the BIA's CAT order, not the FARO, and that an order denying CAT relief is reviewable "only as part of the review of a final order of removal." He urged the Fourth Circuit on remand to confirm it has jurisdiction to review a CAT order when there's no petition against the removal order itself.
Dissenting Opinions
Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson (and Justice Gorsuch except for one part), dissented in part. Although she agreed that the 30-day deadline is non-jurisdictional, she would hold that a removal order doesn't become "final" for purposes of appeal until the conclusion of all related proceedings, including CAT review.
She argued that Congress's instruction to pursue CAT claims "as part of the review of a final order of removal" and the longstanding "policy against piecemeal litigation" require tying appellate finality to the BIA's disposition of the withholding claim, not to the initial FARO. Requiring immigrants to appeal removal orders before CAT relief is denied would spawn meritless "protective appeals" and conflict with precedent under other laws, she warned.
When Immigration Appeals Become Final: The Supreme Court's Interpretation of Removal Orders
Congress designed modern immigration removal provisions to "streamline judicial review" by channeling all "questions of law or fact arising from any action taken to remove an alien" into a single court of appeals petition. Under the law, that petition "must be filed not later than 30 days after the date of the final order of removal."
An "order of removal" is defined as one "concluding that the alien is deportable or ordering deportation." CAT orders—which grant or deny protection from removal to a particular country—differ from removal orders: they don't determine deportability and don't "affect the validity" of a removal order, so they can't themselves be considered final removal orders.
In expedited removal cases like Riley's, the removal order becomes "final" as soon as it's issued, because there's no further opportunity for agency review. The majority treats the 30-day deadline as reflecting only the immigrant's obligation to file within 30 days of the removal order—not limiting a court's power to hear the case.
By contrast, the dissent would align finality for appeal with the policy against piecemeal litigation—and with the requirement that CAT relief be reviewed "as part of the review of a final order of removal"—so that no petition would be due until both removal and protection claims have been fully decided.