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
I’m thrilled to announce the creation of Final Decisions PLLC, an appellate boutique and consultancy focused on appellate jurisdiction. Through it, I hope to partner with lawyers facing complex appellate-jurisdiction issues. Almost six years ago, I started the Final Decisions blog as a way to keep on top of developments in the world of appellate […]
Continue reading....
In New Albany Main Street Properties v. Watco Companies, LLC, the Sixth Circuit held that it could not review a decision granting leave to amend as part of a qualified-immunity appeal. The leave-to-amend decision was not itself immediately appealable. Nor could it tag along with the denial of immunity (which technically involved qualified immunity under […]
Continue reading....
In Ashley v. Clay County, the Fifth Circuit held that a municipal defendant could appeal a district court’s refusal to resolve an immunity defense despite the district court’s ordering arbitration.
Continue reading....
Courts sometimes suggest that would-be appellants must establish appellate standing by showing that the appealed decision injured the would-be appellant. When the appealing party cannot show this injury, these courts think that they have lost Article III jurisdiction. But as a recent opinion from the D.C. Circuit’s Judge Pillard explained, that’s not quite right. Judge […]
Continue reading....
In Silverthorne Seismic, L.L.C. v. Sterling Seismic Services, Ltd., a majority of the Fifth Circuit held that a motions panel had erred in permitting a certified appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). The district court had certified for an immediate appeal a decision on how the plaintiffs could prove reasonable-royalty damages in a trade-secret case. The […]
Continue reading....