In a closely divided 5–4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court has made it more difficult for immigrants to appeal deportations on the grounds of potential torture or persecution in their home countries.
The case, Riley v. Bondi, centered on Pierre Riley, a Jamaican immigrant who overstayed his tourist visa and sought protection under the U.N. Convention Against Torture (CAT), fearing gang violence if returned to Jamaica. In 2021, an immigration judge blocked his removal and referred the case to a withholding-only proceeding, focusing solely on whether Riley could legally remain in the U.S.
Related posts
Riley’s removal was initially deferred under CAT. However, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) appealed, and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) reversed the decision, reinstating the removal order. Riley then filed an appeal with the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, but it was dismissed for missing the 30-day deadline following the original Final Administrative Removal Order (FARO).
Supreme Court’s Ruling
Writing for the conservative majority, Justice Samuel Alito ruled that Riley’s appeal was too late. The Court found that a withholding-only proceeding does not reset the clock for challenging a final deportation order.
“The FARO is the final order of removal in this case, and withholding-only proceedings do not disturb the finality of an otherwise final order,” Alito wrote.
He was joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas, Barrett, and Kavanaugh.
This means the 30-day countdown starts once the FARO is issued, not when subsequent decisions—like deferral under CAT—are made.
Strong Dissent
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson, sharply dissented.
“One should not be required to appeal an order before it exists,” she argued.
“The majority today renders the statute incoherent.”
Sotomayor criticized the ruling as one that “benefits no one” and questioned whether the logic might soon extend to other politically unpopular groups. She noted the absurdity in expecting someone to appeal a decision that hadn’t yet been made.
Gorsuch Partially Dissents
Justice Neil Gorsuch, though generally aligned with the conservative bloc, also dissented—joining all but one part of Sotomayor’s opinion. He expressed concern over the ruling’s implications for finality and judicial review.
Practical Impact
The Court also determined that the 30-day deadline is not “jurisdictional” but rather a claims-processing rule, which typically offers more flexibility. Nonetheless, by upholding strict procedural timelines, the ruling is expected to make it harder for noncitizens to challenge deportation—especially those seeking protection from harm in their home countries.
This decision could benefit Donald Trump’s immigration agenda, which emphasizes faster and broader deportation efforts, even in cases involving humanitarian risks.
