Nasrallah v. Barr

Background

Nidal Khalid Nasrallah is a Lebanese national who became a lawful permanent resident and was convicted of crimes in the United States. He applied for protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), saying he would likely be tortured if sent back to Lebanon. An immigration judge granted CAT protection, but the Board of Immigration Appeals reversed and ordered removal. The Eleventh Circuit declined to review Nasrallah’s factual challenges because of a statutory bar on review for certain criminal convictions.

Reasoning

The Supreme Court considered whether appeals courts can review factual challenges to CAT orders when the noncitizen has certain criminal convictions. The Court said a CAT order is not the same as a final order of removal because it does not change whether the person is deportable. Congress barred factual review of some final removal orders, but did not bar factual review of CAT orders. The Court therefore held that appeals courts may review those factual claims, but review must be deferential under the substantial-evidence standard.

Real world impact

This ruling means that immigrants with certain criminal convictions who claim they would be tortured if returned can ask the federal appeals court to check the immigration agency’s factual findings. That check is narrow: judges will overturn agency findings only if no reasonable adjudicator could have reached the same conclusion. The decision does not change the law for expedited removals and does not itself resolve other forms of protection, which the Court left for future cases.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Thomas dissented, arguing the statute’s consolidation clause covers CAT claims and therefore bars appeals courts from reviewing factual challenges for criminal aliens; he warned the majority’s reading could undermine other limits on review.