Riley v. Bondi Revisions: 6/26/25

Background

Pierre Riley, a Jamaican citizen, was released from prison in January 2021 and quickly received a DHS “final administrative removal order” directing deportation to Jamaica. Riley said he would likely be killed there and won protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) before an Immigration Judge, but the Board of Immigration Appeals later reversed and allowed the removal order to be enforced. Riley filed a petition for review three days after the BIA order, but long after the DHS removal order had issued.

Reasoning

The Court addressed two questions: whether a BIA denial of CAT relief is itself a “final order of removal,” and whether the 30‑day deadline to file a petition for review is jurisdictional. The Court held that the DHS expedited removal order (the FARO) was the final order of removal because it concluded Riley was deportable and directed removal, and that withholding‑only or CAT orders do not change that finality. The Court also held the 30‑day filing rule in 8 U.S.C. §1252(b)(1) is a claims‑processing rule, not a jurisdictional bar, relying on the Court’s recent approach that Congress must clearly signal jurisdictional consequences.

Real world impact

Because the Court treats expedited DHS orders as the operative final removal orders and rejects automatic jurisdictional dismissals for missed 30‑day windows, cases like Riley’s can proceed on remand. The decision resolves circuit splits about timing and puts pressure on agencies and courts to coordinate when withholding‑only proceedings are pending.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Thomas agreed with the non‑jurisdictional holding but urged the Fourth Circuit to consider whether it has authority to review a CAT order standing alone. Justice Sotomayor (joined by two justices) dissented in part, arguing the finality rule should wait until CAT proceedings conclude.