The Supreme Court has ruled that migrants must appeal removal decisions within 30 days, complicating cases for those fearing torture on deportation. This decision, which was reached with a 5-4 split, raises questions about the balance between legal process and humanitarian concerns. The ruling comes in a case involving Pierre Riley, a Jamaican national, who sought to challenge his deportation due to safety concerns.
According to the ruling, once migrants receive a final order of removal, they have a 30-day window to seek review of that order. The decision was joined by three liberal justices, with Justice Neil Gorsuch joining most of the dissent. The case highlights the complex legal journey that migrants face when challenging their removal. Riley, who had come to the United States on a six-month visa three decades ago, was arrested and convicted of drug felonies and served in prison until 2021.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement moved to deport him to Jamaica in January of that year, initiating a lengthy legal process involving Riley’s challenge to his removal. During the process, Riley argued that returning to Jamaica would put his life at risk, as a drug kingpin there had killed two of his cousins and would likely target him as well. He invoked the ‘convention against torture’ rule, which allows migrants to contest being deported to a country where they face a risk of torture.
An immigration judge initially granted Riley ‘withholding of removal’ to Jamaica, meaning he could be deported, but not to Jamaica. However, the government appealed the decision, and the Board of Immigration Appeals overturned it, allowing his deportation to Jamaica. Riley then sought a federal circuit court review, but the appellate court ruled that he was too late, as the 30-day window for review had already passed since the initial removal order.
Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the majority, acknowledged the ‘legitimate practical concerns’ Riley raised but argued that Congress intended for immigration cases to be resolved quickly. He noted that the 30-day deadline, which is triggered when a migrant receives a final removal order, was meant to streamline the process, even if it sometimes results in lengthy legal battles.
In his dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor criticized the majority’s reasoning, calling it illogical and absurd. She argued that the majority’s decision required Riley to file an appeal 16 months before the order he sought to challenge existed, which he believes is not a practical approach to the law. This ruling has sparked debate about how the Supreme Court is shaping the legal landscape for immigrants and the balance between national security and individual rights.