WASHINGTON, DC – Following oral argument at the Supreme Court today in Riley v. Bondi, a case in which the Supreme Court is considering whether the deadline for appealing an immigration removal order is jurisdictional, Constitutional Accountability Center Appellate Counsel Ana Builes issued the following reaction:

As many of the Justices seemed to recognize at oral argument today, this case shouldn’t be difficult.

Pierre Riley, who has lived in the United States for decades and has seven children here, fears he will be tortured if returned to his country of origin, Jamaica. After the Board of Immigration Appeals denied his Convention Against Torture (CAT) claim, he immediately filed a petition for review. But the Fourth Circuit dismissed his case because it concluded he filed too late. According to that court, 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1), which sets a 30-day deadline for filing a petition for review, is jurisdictional.

As Justice Kagan noted during oral argument, reading Section 1252(b)(1) to be jurisdictional makes no sense. Under that view, Congress wanted to ensure that noncitizens like Riley could get judicial review when their CAT claims were denied, but set up a deadline which would make it impossible for them to get that review.

As we explained in the amicus brief we filed with the National Immigration Litigation Alliance, and as several Justices noted at oral argument, the Supreme Court’s modern precedent makes clear that deadlines like the one in Section 1252(b)(1) are not jurisdictional traps for unwary immigrants.

Senior Appellate Counsel Smita Ghosh added this reaction:

During oral argument, the government once again conceded that Riley timely filed his petition. The Supreme Court does not need to go any further to decide this case and reverse.

But if the Court does go further, it should hold that Section 1252(b)(1) is subject to equitable tolling, which means that the 30-day time period can be extended when noncitizens miss the deadline due to circumstances beyond their control. All statutory time limits are presumptively subject to equitable tolling, and as the lawyer defending the decision below seemed to agree, nothing in the statute rebuts that presumption.