New Cert Petition on Scope of Appellate Review in Convention Against Torture Cases
The Convention Against Torture (along with its implementing statutes and regulations) prohibits deporting immigrants to countries where they are likely to face torture. Immigrants can accordingly seek to defer their removal when they face a likelihood of torture. If deferral is denied, the Immigration and Nationality Act gives the courts of appeals jurisdiction to review that denial.
But appellate jurisdiction might not extend to all aspects of a denial. The Immigration and Nationality Act contains several provisions specifying which issues are—and are not—within a court’s appellate jurisdiction. The courts of appeals have split on whether one of these provisions—the bar on reviewing many issues when a petitioner has been convicted of certain crimes—bars review of immigration authorities’ conclusion that a petitioner is not likely to be tortured upon removal. The Supreme Court has repeatedly declined to review this split, despite the United States conceding that the issue merits cert. But a recently filed cert petition—Nasrallah v. Barr, No. 18-1432—might finally be the right opportunity for the Court to resolve this split.
The Split Over CAT Review
We’ll start with some background. The Immigration and Nationality Act has some somewhat-unique provisions on appellate review. It’s appellate-jurisdiction provision—8 U.S.C. § 1252—starts by generally giving the courts of appeals jurisdiction to review a final order of removal in accordance with 28 U.S.C. Chapter 158 (which governs appeals of certain agency actions). It then goes on to specify what issues can and can’t be reviewed, stripping jurisdiction over several issues that might be raised in review of a removal order.
Section 1252(a)(2)(B), for example, strips courts of jurisdiction to review certain discretionary judgments by immigration authorities. Another section—§ 1252(a)(2)(D)—provides that appellate courts have jurisdiction to review constitutional claims or legal issues raised in a petition for review.
Relevant to the petition in Nasrallah, § 1252(a)(2)(C) strips jurisdiction over final removal orders against immigrants convicted of particular crimes. In the context of CAT deferral, the courts of appeals have split on whether this subsection applies to immigration authorities’ findings that petitioners would not likely by tortured upon removal. Most hold that it does. But two courts—the Seventh and Ninth Circuits—hold that it doesn’t. (For more background on the split, see this note by Sarah M. Vogt, full citation in the links below.)
Several petitions over the past few years have sought cert on this issue, including Shabo v. Barr, No. 18-827, in which the Court denied cert last week. And the United States has acknowledged that cert is appropriate on this issue.1
The government’s response is due June 14, 2019. We’ll see then if the government thinks this is finally the appropriate vehicle to address this issue.
Links
For those interested, here are some materials to get acquainted with the case and the underlying circuit split:
- Nasrallah v. Barr, No. 18-1432
- Supreme Court Docket
- Cert Petition at Westlaw (the PDF is not available on the Supreme Court’s website)
- The Eleventh Circuit’s Decision: Nasrallah v. U.S. Attorney General, 762 F. App’x 683 11th Cir. 2019), available at Google Scholar and Westlaw
- The Immigration and Nationality Act’s appellate-jurisdiction provision, 8 U.S.C. § 1252
- Sarah M. Vogt, Note, As a Matter of Fact, No: Appellate Jurisdiction to Review Denials of Deferral of Removal Under the Convention Against Torture, 25 American University Journal of Gender, Social Policy and the Law 87 (2017)
Final Decisions PLLC is an appellate boutique and consultancy that focuses on federal appellate jurisdiction. We partner with lawyers facing appellate-jurisdiction issues, working as consultants or co-counsel to achieve positive outcomes on appeal. Contact us to learn how we can work together.
Learn More ContactRelated Posts
In Shaiban v. Jaddou, the Fourth Circuit held that it lacked jurisdiction to review the denial of an immigrant’s application for permanent residence under 8 U.S.C. § 1159(b). Under 18 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii), courts lack jurisdiction to review certain discretionary decisions in the immigration context. And the government has discretion when it comes to adjusting an asylee’s […]
Continue reading....
In Wilkinson v. Garland, the Supreme Court held that courts of appeals could review whether an immigration petitioner had shown the hardship necessary to be eligible for cancellation of removal. The majority thought that this holding was a straightforward extension of 2020’s Guerrero-Lasprilla v. Barr. But several justices doubted that Congress intended for such a […]
Continue reading....
Since the Supreme Court’s 2020 decision in Guerrero-Lasprilla v. Barr, several courts of appeals have reexamined the scope of their jurisdiction in immigration appeals. Last week produced another example. In Hernandez v. Garland, the Sixth Circuit held that it could review “good moral character” determinations in immigration appeals, as those determinations involve a mixed question […]
Continue reading....
Immigration law generally strips the courts of appeals of jurisdiction to review a variety of factual and discretionary issues. But a savings clause preserves jurisdiction to review legal and constitutional issues. And in 2020’s Guerrero-Lasprilla v. Barr, the Supreme Court held that appellate jurisdiction exists to review mixed questions of law and fact—i.e., the application […]
Continue reading....
Immigration law generally strips the courts of appeals of jurisdiction to review a variety of decisions made in immigration proceedings. A savings clause adds that they retain jurisdiction to review legal and constitutional issues. Until recently, most (if not all) courts of appeals broadly read the jurisdiction-stripping provisions to bar appellate review in a variety […]
Continue reading....Recent Posts
In People ex rel Harrison v. Express Scripts, Inc., the Ninth Circuit held that an appeal from a remand order does not automatically stay the remand. In so holding, the Ninth Circuit weighed in on the split over whether the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Coinbase, Inc. v. Bielski requires a stay after a remand appeal. […]
Continue reading....
In United States v. Riojas, the Fifth Circuit held that the government can waive or forfeit the waivers inherent in an unconditional guilty plea. That’s because waiver (as the Fifth Circuit recently said in an unrelated context) is not jurisdictional. So there is no requirement that a court of appeals raise or enforce an unconditional […]
Continue reading....
In Union Pacific Railroad Co. v. Illinois Mine Subsidence Insurance Fund, the Seventh Circuit held that it lacked jurisdiction to immediately review an order that narrowed the potential injunctive relief in an action. The plaintiff in Union Pacific sought to permanently enjoin the defendant from bringing certain claims against the plaintiff. The district court rejected some […]
Continue reading....
May saw several decisions on effective injunction denials. One of those decisions raised an interesting question about the Supreme Court’s test for when a district court order effective denies a preliminary injunction. In other developments, the Fifth Circuit sat en banc to jettison its rule barring review of waiver-based remands. Other decisions addressed the finality […]
Continue reading....
In Heidi Group, Inc.v. Texas Health and Human Services Commission, the Fifth Circuit reviewed the denial of federal and state immunities but declined to exercise pendent appellate jurisdiction over other issues. In the course of doing so, one judge questioned the collateral-order doctrine’s application to state immunities, and the entire court questioned the doctrine of […]
Continue reading....