Guerrero-Lasprilla v. Barr

Background

Two noncitizens who committed drug crimes, Pedro Pablo Guerrero-Lasprilla and Ruben Ovalles, had final removal orders and later sought to reopen their cases. Each filed a late motion to reopen and argued the 90‑day filing deadline should be equitably tolled after a new court decision made them eligible for relief. The Board of Immigration Appeals denied their tolling requests for lack of due diligence, and the Fifth Circuit declined review, calling due diligence a factual question outside its authority under a federal law that limits appellate review in criminal‑alien removal cases.

Reasoning

The Court considered whether the statutory phrase “questions of law” includes the application of a legal standard to undisputed or established facts. Relying on the statute’s wording, a long‑standing presumption in favor of judicial review, the statute’s broader context (including a provision that consolidates review), and the law’s history, the Court concluded that such applications are indeed “questions of law.” It explained that excluding mixed questions would effectively block meaningful appellate review when an agency states the correct legal standard but misapplies it. The Court therefore reversed the Fifth Circuit, vacated its judgments, and sent the cases back for further proceedings.

Real world impact

Appellate courts can now consider claims that an immigration decision misapplied a legal test to undisputed facts in removal cases involving certain crimes. The ruling does not make all factual findings reviewable; it preserves the bar on pure factual disputes while opening review of legal applications to established facts.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Thomas dissented, arguing the statute’s text and structure exclude mixed questions, and warned the majority’s reading undermines Congress’ efforts to limit review.