Riley v. Bondi
View Official PDFBelow are plain-language sections to help you understand what the Court decided in Riley v. Bondi and why it matters. Quotes are taken from the syllabus (the Court’s short summary at the start of the opinion).
Summary
A short, plain-English overview of Riley v. Bondi.
In Riley v. Bondi, the Supreme Court addressed the finality of removal orders and the jurisdictional nature of filing deadlines in immigration proceedings. The Court determined that BIA orders denying deferral of removal in 'withholding-only' proceedings are not 'final orders of removal' under § 1252(b)(1). Additionally, the Court concluded that the 30-day filing deadline for petitions is a claims-processing rule, not a jurisdictional requirement.
Holding
The single most important “bottom line” of what the Court decided in Riley v. Bondi.
The Court held that BIA orders denying deferral of removal in 'withholding-only' proceedings are not 'final orders of removal' and that the 30-day filing deadline is a claims-processing rule.
Constitutional Concepts
These are the Constitution-related themes that appear in Riley v. Bondi. Click a concept to see other cases that involve the same idea.
-
Why Procedural Due Process is relevant to Riley v. Bondi
The case involves the procedural aspects of removal proceedings and the finality of orders, which are central to procedural due process.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)The text and precedents make clear that the FARO is the final order of removal, and withholding-only proceedings do not disturb the finality of otherwise final removal orders.
-
Why Judicial Review is relevant to Riley v. Bondi
The case examines the jurisdiction of courts to review BIA decisions and the nature of final orders, which implicates judicial review.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)The Court's decisions in Nasrallah v. Barr, 590 U. S. 573, and Johnson v. Guzman Chavez, 594 U. S. 523, buttress this conclusion.
-
Why Administrative Law is relevant to Riley v. Bondi
The case deals with the authority and procedures of administrative agencies, specifically the DHS and BIA, in removal proceedings.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) sought to remove Pierre Riley, a citizen of Jamaica, from the United States under expedited procedures for aliens convicted of aggravated felonies.
Key Quotes
Short excerpts from the syllabus in Riley v. Bondi that support the summary and concepts above.
BIA orders denying deferral of removal in 'withholding-only' proceedings are not 'final order[s] of removal' under § 1252(b)(1).
The 30-day filing deadline under § 1252(b)(1) is a claims-processing rule, not a jurisdictional requirement.
The text and precedents make clear that the FARO is the final order of removal.
