Santos-Zacaria v. Garland

Summarized by:

  • Court: United States Supreme Court
  • Area(s) of Law: Immigration
  • Date Filed: May 11, 2023
  • Case #: No. 21–1436
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Jackson, J., for the Court; Roberts, C.J.; Thomas, J.; Alito, J.; Sotomayor, J.; Kagan, J.; Gorsuch, J.; Kavanaugh, J.; Barrett, J.
  • Full Text Opinion

A rule is jurisdictional “only if Congress ‘clearly states’ that it is.” Boechler v. Commissioner, 596 U.S. ___ (2022). A motion for reconsideration is subject to discretionary review and is not an appeal as of right, and therefore is not subject to the exhaustion requirement of §1252(d)(1).

Petitioner appealed the Board of Immigration Appeals’ denial of their motion for reconsideration following a removal order. The Fifth Circuit held that 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1) is a jurisdictional rule that it must enforce sua sponte. Hamer v. Neighborhood Housing Servs. of Chicago, 583 U.S. ___ (2017). The rule states that the court may not hear a case until the Petitioner has exhausted all administrative remedies with the Board.

The Government argued that § 1252(d)(1) is jurisdictional because it limits judicial review, and urged that a request for reconsideration is an administrative remedy available as of right, and the request must be decided by the Board before a court can hear the case. 

The Court held that a rule is jurisdictional “only if Congress ‘clearly states’ that it is,” and that no such statement was made here. Boechler v. Commissioner, 596 U.S. ___ (2022). The Court turned to Black’s Legal Dictionary to hold that a motion for reconsideration is subject to discretionary review and is not an appeal as of right, and it is therefore not subject to § 1252(d)(1)’s exhaustion requirement. 

Vacated and remanded.

Advanced Search


Back to Top