Deportations Easier Under Supreme Court Ruling in Riley v. Bondi

Publication Date: June 27, 2025

Overview

On June 26, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in Riley v. Bondi, clarifying when removal orders become “final” under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(47) and holding that the 30-day filing deadline for petitions for review is a non-jurisdictional claims-processing rule under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1).

By holding that a DHS “final administrative review order” (FARO) is immediately “the final order of removal,” Riley v. Bondi removes a key procedural stay: noncitizens can no longer delay the enforcement of removal orders by pursuing parallel withholding-only Convention Against Torture (CAT) proceedings.

In practice, that means once DHS issues a FARO, the government may effectuate removal without waiting for any subsequent CAT determination—so deportations can proceed more quickly. At the same time, because the 30-day review deadline is non-jurisdictional, late petitions for review won’t automatically block removal, further limiting procedural hurdles and making the overall removal process both easier and faster to carry out.

The ruling solidifies that a “final administrative review order” (FARO) issued by the Department of Homeland Security immediately upon determination of deportability constitutes a final removal order, and that withholding-only proceedings under the Convention Against Torture do not delay that finality. The Court also determined that the statutory deadline to seek judicial review is mandatory but not jurisdictional, permitting courts to hear late-filed petitions if equitable doctrines apply.

Facts

January 26, 2021: DHS issued a FARO directing Pierre Riley, a Jamaican national convicted of an aggravated felony, to be removed from the United States.
Convention Against Torture (CAT) Claim: Riley sought withholding of removal, asserting a credible fear of torture by a Jamaican drug kingpin if returned. An Immigration Judge (IJ) granted deferral under the CAT, but the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) vacated that relief and reinstated the FARO.
Supreme Court Holdings:
1. A streamlined removal FARO constitutes the “final order of removal” under § 1101(a)(47), becoming administratively final upon issuance. Withholding-only CAT proceedings do not merge into or delay that finality.
2. The 30-day deadline to petition for review under § 1252(b)(1) is a mandatory claims-processing rule, not a jurisdictional requirement. Petitions filed late may be entertained under appropriate equitable principles.

Perspectives

Majority (Justice Alito): Emphasized that statutory text and existing precedents (including Nasrallah v. Barr and Johnson v. Guzman Chavez) clearly define removal orders as final when issued, and that Congress’s 30-day deadline instructs aliens but does not constrain court power.
Dissent (Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson): Warned that treating the filing deadline as non-jurisdictional may undermine the ability of torture-victims to secure judicial oversight, effectively foreclosing their claims if equitable relief is denied.
U.S. Department of Justice: Argued that immediate finality of FAROs promotes efficient enforcement of immigration laws and prevents indefinite pendency of removal orders despite parallel CAT proceedings.
Pierre Riley (through counsel): Contended that deferring judicial review until after withholding-only proceedings would better protect individuals facing credible threats of torture, ensuring meaningful access to courts.
Immigration Advocacy Groups (e.g., AILA): Cautioned that the decision narrows judicial safeguards and could lead to expedited removals without adequate consideration of torture risks in home countries.

Considerations

The ruling enhances procedural clarity by fixing the moment removal orders become final, but may accelerate the timeline for noncitizens to seek relief.
Classifying the § 1252(b)(1) deadline as non-jurisdictional allows courts flexibility to apply equitable doctrines, potentially mitigating harsh outcomes in individual cases.
The decision underscores the tension between immigration-control efficiency and the protection of human rights under international treaties like the CAT.
Lower courts will need to develop guidelines on when and how late-filed petitions may be heard, influencing workload and case management.
Future litigants must carefully monitor FARO issuance dates to preserve review rights, likely prompting closer collaboration between counsel and immigration officers.
The ruling’s reliance on textualist and precedent-based reasoning may guide interpretations of other statutory deadlines in immigration and beyond.
Policymakers may consider legislative amendments if they wish to adjust the balance between expedited removals and enhanced protections for torture-survivors.