Access to Justice

Santos-Zacaria v. Garland

In Santos Zacaria v. Garland, the Supreme Court is considering whether the exhaustion requirement of 8 U.S.C § 1252(d)(1) is jurisdictional.

Case Summary

Leon Santos-Zacaria seeks refuge in the United States because she fears persecution and torture on account of her sexual orientation in her country of origin, Guatemala. Even though the Board of Immigration Appeals concluded that she had experienced persecution in the past as a result of her sexual orientation, it denied her protection from removal because, in its view, she had not demonstrated that she would be persecuted in the future. And even though Santos-Zacaria had asked the Board to remand her case to the Immigration Judge for further examination of that exact question, the Board instead addressed the question in the first instance and dismissed the appeal.

Santos-Zacaria filed a petition for review of the Board’s decision. In January 2022, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit dismissed the appeal. The court held that Santos-Zacaria had not satisfied the exhaustion requirement of 8 U.S.C § 1252(d)(1), which states that before filing a petition for review of a removal order, a non-citizen must “exhaust[] all administrative remedies available to [her] as of right.” Even though the government did not argue that Santos-Zacaria failed to exhaust, the court concluded that § 1252(d)(1) is jurisdictional and therefore it lacked the authority to consider Santos-Zacaria’s petition.

In May 2022, Santos-Zacaria asked the Supreme Court to hear her case, and it agreed to do so.

On November 23, 2022, CAC, along with the National Immigration Litigation Alliance, filed an amici curiae brief in support of Santos-Zacaria. Our brief makes three main points to support Santos-Zacaria’s argument that § 1252(d)(1)’s exhaustion requirement is not jurisdictional.

First, our brief explains that the Supreme Court has adopted a clear statement rule to determine whether statutory requirements are jurisdictional. In other words, Congress must state clearly that a requirement is jurisdictional before courts can treat it that way. Requiring clarity makes sense because jurisdictional prerequisites cannot be waived or forfeited by parties and can therefore be raised months or years into litigation and must be assessed by courts on their own. Jurisdictional rules therefore come at a cost to litigants and judges. The cost is especially great for non-citizens in removal proceedings, who frequently have limited English proficiency, are not guaranteed legal representation, and are often subject to mandatory detention.

Second, our brief argues that Congress has not clearly stated that § 1252(d)(1)’s exhaustion requirement is jurisdictional. The text of the statute provides no indication that Congress intended the exhaustion requirement to be jurisdictional. Notably, in other parts of the Immigration and Nationality Act, Congress was very explicit in providing that “no court shall have jurisdiction” over certain issues.

Finally, we explain that there is no long tradition of treating § 1252(d)(1)’s exhaustion requirement as jurisdictional. In fact, the Supreme Court has previously “treated as nonjurisdictional other types of threshold requirements that claimants must complete, or exhaust, before filing a lawsuit.”

In sum, the Fifth Circuit Court’s dismissal of Santos-Zacaria’s case for lack of jurisdiction has no basis in § 1252(d)(1)’s text or history, as § 1252(d)(1) does not meet the Supreme Court’s long-standing requirements regarding what makes a statute jurisdictional.

Case Timeline

  • November 23, 2022

    CAC files amici brief in the Supreme Court along with the National Immigration Litigation Alliance

    Santos-Zacaria Brief Amici Curiae
  • January 17, 2023

    Supreme Court will hears oral arguments

More from Access to Justice

Access to Justice
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Carmona v. Domino’s Pizza, LLC

In Carmona v. Domino’s Pizza, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is considering whether delivery drivers are engaged in interstate commerce and therefore exempt from the Federal Arbitration Act.
Access to Justice
December 15, 2022

Reporters’ rights roll call: Broad ‘friend of the court’ support pours in for citizen journalist Priscilla Villarreal

The Fire
The government cannot jail journalists for asking a question. But local Texas officials did just...
Access to Justice
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Villarreal v. City of Laredo

In Villarreal v. City of Laredo, the en banc Fifth Circuit is considering whether government officials are entitled to qualified immunity in a suit alleging that they violated a journalist’s constitutional rights by arresting and...
Access to Justice
November 23, 2022

An architect of the law Biden is using to cancel student debt tells the Supreme Court that the relief falls ‘exactly’ under the Education Secretary’s authority and should be revived

Business Insider
One of the lawmakers who constructed the law President Joe Biden is using to cancel...
By: Smita Ghosh, by Ayelet Sheffey
Access to Justice
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Austin v. City of Pasadena

In Austin v. City of Pasadena, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit is considering whether qualified immunity protects jail officers from being sued for using excessive force after they repeatedly tased...
Access to Justice
September 15, 2022

September 2022 Newsletter: Honoring the Constitution in a Time of Challenge