Source: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/18-1432
Timestamp: 2020-07-06 17:53:58
Document Index: 382694107

Matched Legal Cases: ['§1252', '§1252', '§2242', '§1252', '§1101', '§1252', '§1252', '§1231', '§1252', '§1227', 'Art. 3', '§1252', '§1252', '§1252', '§1252', '§1252', '§1101', '§309', '§1252', '§2242', '§1231', '§1252', '§1252', '§1252', '§2242', '§1252', '§1252', '§1252', '§1252', '§1252', '§1101', '§309', '§1252', '§1252', '§1252', '§1252', '§2242', '§1231', '§2242', '§1252', '§2242', '§1252', '§1252', '§2242', '§1252', '§1252', '§1252', '§1252', '§1231', '§208', '§1231', '§1252', '§1252', '§1252', '§1252']

NASRALLAH v. BARR | Supreme Court | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute
(a) Three interlocking statutes establish that CAT orders may be reviewed together with final orders of removal in a court of appeals. The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 authorizes noncitizens to obtain direct “review of a final order of re moval” in a court of appeals, §1252(a)(1), and requires that all challenges arising from the removal proceeding be consolidated for review, §1252(b)(9). The Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (FARRA) implements Article 3 of CAT and provides for judicial review of CAT claims “as part of the review of a final order of removal.” §2242(d). And the REAL ID Act of 2005 clarifies that final orders of removal and CAT orders may be reviewed only in the courts of appeals. §§1252(a)(4)–(5). Pp. 5–6.
(b) Sections 1252(a)(2)(C) and (D) preclude judicial review of factual challenges only to final orders of removal. A CAT order is not a final “order of removal,” which in this context is defined as an order “concluding that the alien is deportable or ordering deportation,” §1101(a)(47)(A). Nor does a CAT order merge into a final order of removal, because a CAT order does not affect the validity of a final order of removal. See INS v. Chadha, 462 U. S. 919, 938. FARRA provides that a CAT order is reviewable “as part of the review of a final order of removal,” not that it is the same as, or affects the validity of, a final order of removal. Had Congress wished to preclude judicial review of factual challenges to CAT orders, it could have easily done so. Pp. 6–9.
The Government insists that the statute supplies no judicial review of factual challenges to CAT orders, but its arguments are unpersuasive. First, the holding in Foti v. INS, 375 U. S. 217, depends on an outdated interpretation of “final orders of deportation” and so does not control here. Second, the Government argues that §1252(a)(1) supplies judicial review only of final orders of removal, and if a CAT order is not merged into that final order, then no statute authorizes review of the CAT claim. But both FARRA and the REAL ID Act provide for direct review of CAT orders in the courts of appeals. Third, the Government’s assertion that Congress would not bar review of factual challenges to a removal order and allow such challenges to a CAT order ignores the importance of adherence to the statutory text as well as the good reason Congress had for distinguishing the two—the facts that rendered the noncitizen removable are often not in serious dispute, while the issues related to a CAT order will not typically have been litigated prior to the alien’s removal proceedings. Fourth, the Government’s policy argument—that judicial review of the factual components of a CAT order would unduly delay removal proceedings—has not been borne out in practice in those Circuits that have allowed factual challenges to CAT orders. Fifth, the Government fears that a decision allowing factual review of CAT orders would lead to factual challenges to other orders in the courts of appeals. But orders denying discretionary relief under §1252(a)(2)(B) are not affected by this decision, and the question whether factual challenges to statutory withholding orders under §1231(b)(3)(A) are subject to judicial review is not presented here. Pp. 9–13.
In the court of appeals, for cases involving noncitizens who have committed any crime specified in 8 U. S. C. §1252(a)(2)(C), federal law limits the scope of judicial review. Those noncitizens may obtain judicial review of con stitutional and legal challenges to the final order of removal, but not of factual challenges to the final order of removal.
Based on Nasrallah’s conviction, the Government initiated deportation proceedings. See 8 U. S. C. §1227(a)(2)(A)(i). In those proceedings, Nasrallah applied for CAT relief to prevent his removal to Lebanon. See Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, Art. 3, Dec. 10, 1984, S. Treaty Doc. No. 100–20, p. 20, 1465 U. N. T. S. 114. Nasrallah alleged that he was a member of the Druze religion, and that he had been tortured by Hezbollah before he came to the United States. Nasrallah argued that he would be tortured again if returned to Lebanon.1
Nasrallah filed a petition for review in the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, claiming (among other things) that the Board of Immigration Appeals erred in finding that he would not likely be tortured in Lebanon. Nasrallah raised factual challenges to the Board’s CAT order. Applying Circuit precedent, the Eleventh Circuit declined to review Nasrallah’s factual challenges. Nasrallah v. United States Attorney General, 762 Fed. Appx. 638 (2019). The court explained that Nasrallah had been convicted of a crime specified in 8 U. S. C. §1252(a)(2)(C). Noncitizens convicted of §1252(a)(2)(C) crimes may not obtain judicial review of factual challenges to a “final order of removal.” §§1252(a)(2)(C)–(D). Under Eleventh Circuit precedent, that statute also precludes judicial review of factual challenges to the CAT order.2
The Courts of Appeals are divided over whether §§1252(a)(2)(C) and (D) preclude judicial review of factual challenges to a CAT order. Most Courts of Appeals have sided with the Government; the Seventh and Ninth Circuits have gone the other way. Compare Gourdet v. Holder, 587 F. 3d 1, 5 (CA1 2009); Ortiz-Franco v. Holder, 782 F. 3d 81, 88 (CA2 2015); Pieschacon-Villegas v. Attorney General of U. S., 671 F. 3d 303, 309–310 (CA3 2011); Oxygene v. Lynch, 813 F. 3d 541, 545 (CA4 2016); Escudero-Arciniega v. Holder, 702 F. 3d 781, 785 (CA5 2012); Tran v. Gonzales, 447 F. 3d 937, 943 (CA6 2006); Lovan v. Holder, 574 F. 3d 990, 998 (CA8 2009); Cole v. United States Attorney General, 712 F. 3d 517, 532 (CA11 2013), with Wanjiru v. Holder, 705 F. 3d 258, 264 (CA7 2013); Vinh Tan Nguyen v. Holder, 763 F. 3d 1022, 1029 (CA9 2014).
In light of the Circuit split on this important question of federal law, we granted certiorari. 589 U. S. ___ (2019).3
The first relevant statute is the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996. That Act authorizes noncitizens to obtain direct “review of a final order of removal” in a court of appeals. 110 Stat. 3009–607, 8 U. S. C. §1252(a)(1). As the parties agree, in the deportation context, a “final order of removal” is a final order “concluding that the alien is deportable or ordering deportation.” §1101(a)(47)(A); see §309(d)(2), 110 Stat. 3009–627; Calcano-Martinez v. INS, 533 U. S. 348, 350, n. 1 (2001). The Act also states that judicial review “of all questions of law and fact . . . arising from any action taken or proceeding brought to remove an alien from the United States under this subchapter shall be available only in judicial review of a final order under this section.” 8 U. S. C. §1252(b)(9); see 110 Stat. 3009–610. In other words, a noncitizen’s various challenges arising from the removal proceeding must be “consolidated in a petition for review and considered by the courts of appeals.” INS v. St. Cyr, 533 U. S. 289, 313, and n. 37 (2001). By consolidating the issues arising from a final order of removal, eliminating review in the district courts, and supplying direct review in the courts of appeals, the Act expedites judicial review of final orders of removal.
The second relevant statute is the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998, known as FARRA. FARRA implements Article 3 of the international Convention Against Torture, known as CAT. As relevant here, CAT prohibits removal of a noncitizen to a country where the noncitizen likely would be tortured. Importantly for present purposes, §2242(d) of FARRA provides for judicial review of CAT claims “as part of the review of a final order of removal pursuant to section 242 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U. S. C. 1252).” 112 Stat. 2681–822, note following 8 U. S. C. §1231.
The third relevant statute is the REAL ID Act of 2005. As relevant here, that Act responded to this Court’s 2001 decision in St. Cyr. In St. Cyr, this Court ruled that the 1996 Act, although purporting to eliminate district court review of final orders of removal, did not eliminate district court review via habeas corpus of constitutional or legal challenges to final orders of removal. 533 U. S., at 312–313. The REAL ID Act clarified that final orders of removal may not be reviewed in district courts, even via habeas corpus, and may be reviewed only in the courts of appeals. See 119 Stat. 310, 8 U. S. C. §1252(a)(5). The REAL ID Act also provided that CAT orders likewise may not be reviewed in district courts, even via habeas corpus, and may be reviewed only in the courts of appeals. See 119 Stat. 310, 8 U. S. C. §1252(a)(4).
Even though CAT orders are not the same as final orders of removal, a question remains: Do CAT orders merge into final orders of removal in the same way as, say, an immigration judge’s evidentiary rulings merge into final orders of removal? The answer is no. For purposes of this statute, final orders of removal encompass only the rulings made by the immigration judge or Board of Immigration Appeals that affect the validity of the final order of removal. As this Court phrased it in INS v. Chadha, review of a final order of removal “includes all matters on which the validity of the final order is contingent.” 462 U. S. 919, 938 (1983) (internal quotation marks omitted). The rulings that affect the validity of the final order of removal merge into the final order of removal for purposes of judicial review. But the immigration judge’s or the Board’s ruling on a CAT claim does not affect the validity of the final order of removal and therefore does not merge into the final order of removal.
To be sure, as noted above, FARRA provides that a CAT order is reviewable “as part of the review of a final order of removal” under 8 U. S. C. §1252. §2242(d), 112 Stat. 2681–822; see also 8 U. S. C. §1252(a)(4). Likewise, §1252(b)(9) provides that “[j]udicial review of all questions of law and fact . . . arising from any action taken or proceeding brought to remove an alien from the United States under this subchapter shall be available only in judicial review of a final order under this section.” §1252(b)(9). But FARRA and §1252(b)(9) simply establish that a CAT order may be reviewed together with the final order of removal, not that a CAT order is the same as, or affects the validity of, a final order of removal.
Although a noncitizen may obtain judicial review of factual challenges to CAT orders, that review is highly deferential, as Nasrallah acknowledges. See Reply Brief 19–20; Tr. of Oral Arg. 5. The standard of review is the substantial-evidence standard: The agency’s “findings of fact are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” §1252(b)(4)(B); see Kenyeres v. Ashcroft, 538 U. S. 1301, 1306 (2003) (Kennedy, J., in chambers); INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U. S. 478, 481, n. 1, 483–484 (1992).
First, the Government raises an argument based on precedent. In Foti v. INS, 375 U. S. 217 (1963), this Court interpreted the statutory term “final orders of deportation” in the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, as amended in 1961, to encompass “all determinations made during and incident to the administrative proceeding” on removability. Id., at 229. The Government points out (correctly) that the Foti definition of a final order—if it still applied here—would cover CAT orders and therefore would bar judicial review of factual challenges to CAT orders. But Foti’s interpretation of the INA as it existed as of 1963 no longer applies. Since 1996, the INA has defined final “order of deportation” more narrowly than this Court interpreted the term in Foti. A final order of deportation is now defined as a final order “concluding that the alien is deportable or ordering deportation.” 8 U. S. C. §1101(a)(47)(A); Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, 110 Stat. 1277; see §309(d)(2) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, 110 Stat. 3009–627. And as we have explained, an order denying CAT relief does not fall within the statutory definition of an “order of deportation” because it is not an order “concluding that the alien is deportable or ordering deportation.” Therefore, Foti does not control here.
Fifth, what about the slippery slope? If factual challenges to CAT orders may be reviewed, what other orders will now be subject to factual challenges in the courts of appeals? Importantly, another jurisdiction-stripping provision, §1252(a)(2)(B), states that a noncitizen may not bring a factual challenge to orders denying discretionary relief, including cancellation of removal, voluntary departure, adjustment of status, certain inadmissibility waivers, and other determinations “made discretionary by statute.” Kucana v. Holder, 558 U. S. 233, 248 (2010). Our decision today therefore has no effect on judicial review of those discretionary determinations.5
3 This case comes to us on the premise that Nasrallah committed a crime specified in §1252(a)(2)(C). That said, courts are divided on the question whether §§1252(a)(2)(C)–(D)’s limitation on judicial review applies when a noncitizen has committed only a single crime of moral turpitude. But that issue is not the question presented in this Court, and we do not address it. Compare Keungne v. United States Attorney General, 561 F. 3d 1281, 1283 (CA11 2009), with Yeremin v. Holder, 738 F. 3d 708, 713 (CA6 2013); Wanjiru v. Holder, 705 F. 3d 258, 262–263 (CA7 2013); Lee v. Gonzales, 410 F. 3d 778, 781–782 (CA5 2005).
4 Title 8 U. S. C. §1252(a)(2)(C) provides:“Notwithstanding any other provision of law (statutory or nonstatutory), including section 2241 of title 28, or any other habeas corpus provision, and sections 1361 and 1651 of such title, and except as provided in subparagraph (D), no court shall have jurisdiction to review any final order of removal against an alien who is removable by reason of having committed a criminal offense covered in section 1182(a)(2) or 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii), (B), (C), or (D) of this title, or any offense covered by section 1227(a)(2)(A)(ii) of this title for which both predicate offenses are, without regard to their date of commission, otherwise covered by section 1227(a)(2)(A)(i) of this title.” (Emphasis added.) Section 1252(a)(2)(D) provides: “Nothing in subparagraph (B) or (C), or in any other provision of this chapter (other than this section) which limits or eliminates judicial review, shall be construed as precluding review of constitutional claims or questions of law raised upon a petition for review filed with an appropriate court of appeals in accordance with this section.” (Emphasis added.)
The Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT or Convention) is an international human rights treaty that, as its name implies, obligates signatories to work to eradicate torture. The Convention was sent to the Senate for its advice and consent in 1990. Although the Senate ultimately ratified the treaty, it also determined that the first 16 articles of the Convention were not self-executing. See S. Exec. Rep. No. 101–30, p. 31 (1990). As such, those articles required implementing legislation before their obligations could become effective as domestic law. See Medellín v. Texas, 552 U. S. 491, 505, n. 2 (2008).
After the treaty was ratified, Congress enacted legislation implementing Article III of the Convention by means of the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (FARRA). See §2242, 112 Stat. 2681–822, note following 8 U. S. C. §1231. Article III of the Convention prohibits its signatories from “expel[ling], return[ing] or extradit[ing] a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture.” S. Treaty Doc. No. 100–20, p. 20, 1465 U. N. T. S. 114. Rather than providing detailed guidance on the United States’ Article III obligations, FARRA merely restated the treaty’s language and perfunctorily declared that “the heads of the appropriate agencies shall prescribe regulations to implement the obligations of the United States under Article 3.” §2242(b).1 Congress also provided that no court would have “jurisdiction to consider or review claims raised under the Convention . . . except as part of the review of a final order of removal pursuant to . . . (8 U. S. C. §1252).” §2242(d).
The zipper clause states that “all questions of law and fact . . . arising from any action taken or proceeding brought to remove an alien . . . shall be available only in judicial review of a final order under this section.” §1252(b)(9) (emphasis added). To “arise” means “to originate from a specified source” or “to come into being.” Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 117 (1976). And “from” most naturally refers here to the “ground, reason, or basis” for something. Id., at 913. Thus, §1252(b)(9) covers all “questions of law and fact” that an immigration judge must decide as a result of the Government’s decision to initiate removal proceedings against an alien. See also Reno v. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Comm., 525 U. S. 471, 482 (1999) (stating that the zipper clause applies to the “many . . . de cisions or actions that may be part of the [removal] process”).2
This is incorrect. Jurisdiction over CAT claims comes from FARRA §2242(d), which states that courts cannot review CAT claims “except as part of the review of a final order of removal pursuant to . . . (8 U. S. C. §1252).” In other words, a final order of removal is required if a court is to review a CAT order at all. The CAT order then becomes reviewable “as part of ” that final order of removal through the zipper clause. And, because FARRA funnels exclusive review of CAT orders through §1252, all of that section’s limitations on final orders of removal apply equally to CAT orders, including §1252(a)(2)(C).
Section 1252(a)(2)(4), on the other hand, serves a far simpler function. That provision simply confirms that, because CAT claims can be reviewed only as part of a final order of removal, and final orders of removal can be reviewed only if a petitioner files a petition for review, a CAT claim likewise can be reviewed only if petitioner files a petition for review. See Ortiz-Franco v. Holder, 782 F. 3d 81, 88–89 (CA2 2015); Lovan v. Holder, 574 F. 3d 990, 998 (CA8 2009). My reading of the statute makes sense of §1252(a)(4), while still giving the zipper clause its ordinary meaning.3
The majority’s interpretation will bring about a sea change in immigration law. Though today’s case involves CAT claims, there is good reason to think that the majority’s rule will apply equally to statutory withholding of removal. Statutory withholding, a frequently sought form of relief, is available if “the alien’s life or freedom would be threatened . . . because of the alien’s race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” §1231(b)(3)(A); see also 8 CFR §208.16(b) (2020). Like CAT withholding, statutory withholding is unavailable to aliens who have committed certain crimes. §1231(b)(3)(B)(ii). And like CAT relief, statutory withholding seeks to prevent removability and is considered after the alien has been deemed removable. See, e.g., Kouambo v. Barr, 943 F. 3d 205, 210 (CA4 2019). Thus, statutory withholding claims also do not affect the validity of the underlying removal order and, in the majority’s view, would not be subject to §1252(a)(2)(C).
The Government persuasively argues that adopting petitioner’s rule will disturb the courts of appeals’ longstanding practice of subjecting criminal aliens’ statutory withholding claims to §1252(a)(2)(C). See, e.g., Rendon v. Barr, 952 F. 3d 963, 970 (CA8 2020); Pierre-Paul v. Barr, 930 F. 3d 684, 693–694 (CA5 2019); Gutierrez v. Lynch, 834 F. 3d 800, 804 (CA7 2016); Jeune v. United States Atty. Gen., 810 F. 3d 792, 806, nn. 3, 12 (CA11 2016); Pechenkov v. Holder, 705 F. 3d 444, 448 (CA9 2012). And at oral argument, petitioner all but conceded that the Government is correct on that score. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 20–21. Whistling past the graveyard, the majority attempts to avoid confronting this result by simply stating that the question is not currently before us. Ante, at 13. But the Court cannot evade the implications of its decision so easily. We have been presented with two competing statutory interpretations—one of which makes sense of all relevant provisions without upending settled practice, and one of which significantly undermines §1252(a)(2)(C) by removing a vast swath of claims from its reach. If the majority insists on choosing the latter interpretation, it should justify that choice and candidly confront its implications.
What Congress has done is enact §1252(a)(2)(C), which strips jurisdiction over certain claims of criminal aliens. That is what is before us, not the broader policy considerations. As has been the case for decades now, the decisions of this Court continue to systematically chip away at this statute and other jurisdictional limitations on immigration claims, thus thwarting Congress’ intent. See Guerrero-Lasprilla v. Barr, 589 U. S. ___, ___ (2020) (Thomas, J., dissenting) (slip op., at 1); INS v. St. Cyr, 533 U. S. 289, 328–330 (2001) (Scalia, J., dissenting). Because today’s erroneous result further weakens a duly enacted statute, I respectfully dissent.