Pierre Yassue Nashun Riley v. Bondi
In brief
The 30-day deadline is not jurisdictional, but a withholding-only decision does not restart that deadline because it is not a final removal order.
- Where it stands
- Decided
Decided 9-0 · June 26, 2025 · Opinion by Justice Alito
- What it’s about
- The Supreme Court ruled that the 30-day deadline for filing a petition for review of a removal order is a mandatory claims-processing rule rather than a jurisdictional requirement, meaning it can be waived or forfeited.
- Who it affects
- People challenging removal orders may benefit when the government does not timely raise a missed filing deadline.
Summary: written with AI from the case record.
What it's about
The Court also determined that a Board of Immigration Appeals order denying Convention Against Torture relief in a withholding-only proceeding does not constitute a final order of removal for triggering this deadline.
The decision limits when court filing deadlines block immigration cases and identifies which immigration decision starts the 30-day review clock.
Question presented
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?
What the Court decided
Holding
BIA orders denying deferral of removal in “withholding-only” proceedings are not “final order[s] of removal” under §1252(b)(1). An “order of removal” includes an “order of deportation,” 110 Stat. 3009–627, which, in turn, is defined as an order “concluding that the alien is deportable or ordering deportation,” §1101(a)(47)(A). The FARO issued by DHS on January 26, 2021, is “the final order of removal” under the statute because it held that Riley was deportable and directed that he be removed from the United States. The order was also the Executive’s final determination on the question of removal.
- Result
- Vacated
The vote
- Joined the judgment
- Concurred in a separate opinion
- Wrote an opinion
- Majority · 8joined the Court's opinion
- Concurring · 1agreed with the result, wrote separately
- Thomaswrote separately
From the opinions
“The demanding requirement is not met here.”
What's next
The case returns to the Fourth Circuit for further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court's decision. Lower courts and immigration parties must treat the original final removal order, rather than a later withholding-only decision, as the relevant removal order for the deadline.
Why it matters
But a person cannot obtain review of a withholding-only decision simply by filing within 30 days of that decision, because it is not a final removal order.
Documents
Docket activity
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Impact Analysis
AI analysis generated: Opinion Summary
AI analysis generated: Decision Record
New analysis added
Show 7 moreShow fewer
AI analysis generated: Case Briefing
Status changed from unknown to unknown
Status changed from unknown to unknown
Opinion added: opinion
Opinion added: Riley
Audio Recording added: Oral Arguments - Riley
Status changed from unknown to unknown
More questions
- What did the Supreme Court rule in Riley v. Bondi?
- The Court said the 30-day filing deadline is a claims-processing rule, not a jurisdictional bar. It also said a withholding-only decision is not a final removal order.
- Who is affected by the Riley v. Bondi decision?
- People seeking court review of removal orders are affected, especially those in withholding-only proceedings. The government may waive or forfeit an objection based on a late filing.
- What happens next in Riley v. Bondi?
- The Fourth Circuit will reconsider the case under the Supreme Court's decision. Courts must use the final removal order, not the later withholding-only decision, for the deadline analysis.
Sources
Primary materials plus reporting. Best-effort analysis: this explainer relies on a mix of primary materials and trusted secondary sources. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.