Riley v. Bondi

Majority reasoning

The majority held that the original Final Administrative Removal Order (FARO) issued by the Department of Homeland Security is the "final order of removal" under the statute, because it is the order that concludes the person is deportable and directs their removal. The Court reasoned that because non-citizens in expedited removal proceedings cannot appeal their removal order to an immigration judge or the Board of Immigration Appeals, the period to seek such review expires immediately upon the order's issuance, making it final at once. The majority relied on two prior decisions — Nasrallah v. Barr and Johnson v. Guzman Chavez — which established that CAT orders do not disturb or affect the validity of a removal order and that the finality of a removal order does not depend on the outcome of withholding-only proceedings. On the second question, the Court held that the 30-day filing deadline is not jurisdictional, because the statute's language directs what non-citizens must do to seek review but gives no directives to courts, does not reference jurisdiction, and is not placed in a part of the statute that concerns court authority. The Court noted that since its 2006 decision in Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., it has consistently required a very clear signal from Congress before treating a deadline as jurisdictional, and no such signal exists here.

Dissent reasoning

The dissent argued that requiring Riley to file his appeal 16 months before the Board of Immigration Appeals issued the order he was challenging is logically incoherent — one cannot be required to appeal an order before it exists. Justice Sotomayor wrote that the statutory definition of finality does not clearly apply to expedited removal orders at all, because those orders are never reviewed by the Board, meaning there is no "period" for seeking Board review that could "expire" — a period that never begins cannot expire. The dissent contended that centuries of finality doctrine establish that when two orders must be appealed together in a single proceeding (as Congress directed for removal and CAT orders), they must also become final together, just as a criminal conviction does not become final for appeal purposes until a sentence is imposed. The dissent argued the majority's reliance on Guzman Chavez was misplaced, because that case addressed "administrative finality" for purposes of detention — an entirely different question than finality for purposes of appeal — and the Court in that case expressly declined to address the appellate finality question. The dissent warned that the ruling will force non-citizens facing expedited removal to file immediate protective appeals in every case just to preserve their right to later challenge a CAT denial, creating unnecessary burdens on courts, the government, and non-citizens alike — a result that benefits no one, as even the government agreed.