Nasrallah v. Barr

Summarized by:

  • Court: United States Supreme Court
  • Area(s) of Law: Immigration
  • Date Filed: June 1, 2020
  • Case #: 18-1432
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: KAVANAUGH, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and GINSBURG, BREYER, SOTOMAYOR, KAGAN, and GORSUCH, JJ., joined. THOMAS, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which ALITO, J., joined.
  • Full Text Opinion

In the context of federal immigration law, Convention Against Torture (CAT) orders may be reviewed alongside final orders of removal.

The Government commenced deportation proceedings after Petitioner, a lawful permanent resident, pled guilty to receiving stolen property. The immigration judge ordered Petitioner removed, but also granted him relief under CAT. The Board of Immigration Appeals held that granting Petitioner a deferral was an error and ordered his removal. When Petitioner sought review of the factual findings, the Eleventh Circuit declined Petitioner’s appeal because noncitizens convicted of a crime listed in 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C) cannot acquire judicial review for factual challenges to CAT orders or a final order of removal. The Supreme Court held that, as a matter of statutory interpretation, CAT orders may be reviewed alongside final orders of removal. The Court reasoned that a CAT order is not itself a final order of removal, does not impact the validity of final orders, and “does not merge into the final order of removal for purposes of §§ 1252(a)(2)(C)-(D)’s limitation on the scope of judicial review.” Therefore, the Court concluded that statutory text precludes only final orders of removal from judicial review of factual disputes. REVERSED.

Advanced Search


Back to Top