Supreme Court Oral Arguments [23-1270] Riley v. Bondi
Riley v. Bondi
Argued on Mar 24, 2025.
Petitioner: Pierre Yassue Nashun Riley.
Respondent: Pamela Bondi, Attorney General.
Advocates:
- Keith Bradley (for the Petitioner)
- Ephraim McDowell (for the Respondent in support of the Petitioner)
- Stephen J. Hammer (court-appointed amicus curiae in support of the judgment below)
Facts of the case (from oyez.org)
Riley entered the U.S. on a tourist visa in 1995. In 2006, he was indicted and later convicted of marijuana distribution and firearm charges, receiving a 25-year sentence. After being granted compassionate release in January 2021, immigration authorities took him into custody and ordered his removal due to his aggravated felony conviction. Though Riley expressed fear of returning to Jamaica, leading to various proceedings regarding potential persecution and torture claims, he ultimately was only eligible for deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). While an immigration judge initially granted this relief, the Board of Immigration Appeals reversed the decision in May 2022 and ordered Riley’s removal to Jamaica. Riley petitioned for review, and his case was temporarily held pending the resolution of Martinez v. Garland. In Martinez, the U.S. Court Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held that an order denying CAT relief is not a final order of removal for purposes of § 1252(a)(1). Relying on Martinez, the Fourth Circuit dismissed Riley’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
Question
1. Is 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1)’s 30-day deadline jurisdictional, or merely a mandatory claims-processing rule that can be waived or forfeited?
2. Can a person obtain review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision in a withholding-only proceeding by filing a petition within 30 days of that decision?