Pierre Yassue Nashun Riley, Petitioner v. Pamela Bondi, Attorney General

The Supreme Court ruled that the 30-day deadline to challenge a removal order is a mandatory claims-processing rule, not a jurisdictional requirement. This means the deadline can be waived or forfeited rather than being an absolute bar to a court's power. The Court also held that an order denying relief under the Convention Against Torture does not count as a final order of removal that starts the 30-day clock.

This decision provides more flexibility for non-citizens who miss the strict 30-day filing window due to technicalities. It ensures that courts are not automatically stripped of power to hear a case just because a deadline was missed. However, it also clarifies that certain humanitarian relief proceedings do not delay the finality of a deportation order.

The case centers on how strictly federal courts must follow deadlines set by Congress in immigration law. For years, the Court has worked to distinguish between jurisdictional rules, which cannot be ignored, and procedural rules that allow for some exceptions. This ruling follows a trend of requiring Congress to be exceptionally clear if it wants a deadline to be an absolute jurisdictional limit.

Justice Samuel Alito wrote the 5-4 majority opinion. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a concurring opinion, while Justice Sonia Sotomayor authored a dissent joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson, and partially by Justice Gorsuch.

“Courts should treat statutory limitations as jurisdictional only when Congress clearly states such intent.”

“Removal orders should not become final until withholding-only proceedings are complete.”

The 30-day deadline for immigration appeals is a flexible procedural rule, but torture-related relief does not delay the finality of a deportation order.

The case has been vacated and remanded (sent back) to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this ruling. Lower courts will now apply this new standard to determine if they can hear immigration appeals that were filed after the 30-day mark.

The dispute was whether a 30-day filing deadline was an absolute limit on court power or a flexible procedural rule. It also questioned when a deportation order becomes final.

Non-citizens may have a chance to argue their cases even if they miss the 30-day deadline. However, they cannot use torture-protection hearings to delay the finality of their deportation.

The Court established that 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1) is a mandatory claims-processing rule. It lacks the clear statement from Congress required to make it a jurisdictional limit.

The case returns to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. That court must now decide if it has jurisdiction to review the specific relief Riley requested.

The ruling continues a trend where the Court refuses to treat deadlines as jurisdictional without clear congressional intent. It limits the government's ability to block appeals on technicalities.