Riley v. Bondi

Background

Pierre Riley, a Jamaican citizen, was ordered removed by DHS through a fast administrative process after an aggravated‑felony conviction. Riley sought protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), won deferral before an Immigration Judge, but lost on appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). He filed for judicial review within 30 days of the BIA decision but long after the DHS final administrative removal order (FARO) was issued.

Reasoning

The Court addressed two questions: whether a BIA order denying CAT relief in a withholding‑only proceeding counts as the “final order of removal,” and whether the 30‑day filing deadline is jurisdictional. The Court held the FARO itself was the “final order of removal” because streamlined removal orders cannot be reviewed before an immigration judge or the BIA, so the FARO becomes final on issuance. The Court also held the 30‑day deadline in 8 U.S.C. §1252(b)(1) is a claims‑processing rule, not a jurisdictional bar, relying on statutory text and recent precedent.

Real world impact

As a result, expedited administrative removal orders like FAROs are treated as final when issued, which can accelerate the window for appeals in many cases. At the same time, because the 30‑day rule is nonjurisdictional, courts retain flexibility to consider equitable defenses and the Government did not press dismissal here. The Supreme Court vacated the Fourth Circuit’s dismissal and remanded for further proceedings.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Thomas concurred but urged the lower court to revisit other possible jurisdictional defects. Justice Sotomayor (joined by Kagan and Jackson) dissented in part, arguing the Court’s finality reading forces appeals before the BIA order exists and raises fairness concerns.