- 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
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.