The Trump administration stated that if elected, it would begin deporting illegal immigrants immediately. The Supreme Court is set to hear a case that could have far-reaching consequences for deportation. This addresses non-citizen appeal deadlines, which have the potential to change the landscape of immigration law. The case centers on a 30-day appeal period for non-citizens who are contesting removal orders. The decision may resolve a circuit split over deadline interpretation.
Supreme Court to Address Circuit Split
The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case Velazquez v. Garland, which addresses a critical issue in immigration law: the deadline for voluntary departure of noncitizens. This case, set for November 12, 2024, aims to resolve a conflict between different circuit courts regarding the interpretation of these deadlines.
The crux of the matter is how various courts interpret the deadline when it falls on a weekend or holiday. The Tenth Circuit has ruled that the deadline cannot be extended, whereas the Ninth Circuit allows for an extension to the next business day. This discrepancy has led to uncertainty and potentially unfair outcomes for noncitizens facing deportation.
The Supreme Court will consider if federal appeals courts can review appeals from non-citizens claiming they’ll be killed or tortured if deported that are filed more than 30 days after a removal order is issued.https://t.co/tmcYtJm409
— Bloomberg Law (@BLaw) November 4, 2024
Impact on Non Citizen Rights
The Supreme Court’s decision may have far-reaching consequences for noncitizens throughout the country. It may have an impact on how filing deadlines are interpreted and how administrative agencies exercise their discretion in extending deadlines. This is especially important for people who have relied on the practice of extending deadlines to the following business day.
“The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit held that, regardless of what day of the week a voluntary-departure period expires, the law requires a noncitizen moving to reopen or reconsider removal proceedings to file within the calendar-day period set in the voluntary departure order.” – U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
This strict interpretation contrasts sharply with the more flexible approach taken by the Ninth Circuit, highlighting the need for a unified standard across the country.
Yes with a very speedy trial and execution.
Non-citizens are not bestowed the same rights under The U.S. Constitution as Americans.— Maddox (@Maddox8212) November 3, 2024
The Case of Pierre Riley
Pierre Yassue Nashun Riley, a Jamaican national, is at the center of this legal battle after missing the 30-day appeal deadline for a final removal order. Riley’s case highlights the complexities and potential consequences of rigid deadline interpretations in immigration cases.
“The US Supreme Court will consider if federal appeals courts can review appeals from non-citizens claiming they’ll be killed or tortured if deported that are filed more than 30 days after a removal order is issued.” – Pierre Riley
Riley claims that he filed his appeal within 30 days of the Board of Immigration’s decision, which occurred 16 months after the initial order. This case raises important questions about when the 30-day appeal period should begin and whether it should be viewed as a strict jurisdictional requirement or a more flexible guideline.
Broader Implications for Immigration Law
The Supreme Court’s decision in this case could have broader implications for immigration law and policy. It comes at a time when the country is dealing with complicated immigration issues, such as the use of expedited removal procedures and the interpretation of asylum laws.
The outcome of this case may have an impact on how immigration courts and federal appeals courts handle similar cases in the future, potentially affecting noncitizens’ rights and protections when they face deportation. As the country awaits the Supreme Court’s decision, the case serves as a reminder of the delicate balance between administrative efficiency and the protection of individual rights in the United States’ immigration system.
