Supreme Court of the United States
Santos-Zacaria v. Garland
May 11, 2023598 U.S. 411
Summary
Justice Jackson's opinion, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett, held that 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1)'s administrative-exhaustion requirement is nonjurisdictional and subject to waiver and forfeiture. It also held that the provision does not require seeking discretionary Board of Immigration Appeals reconsideration, even to present an objection arising from the Board's decision. The Court vacated the portion of the Fifth Circuit's judgment dismissing Santos-Zacaria's petition for review and remanded. Justice Alito, joined by Justice Thomas, concurred in the judgment because reconsideration was discretionary and therefore unnecessary for exhaustion; he would not have decided the jurisdictional question.
Holding
- Whether § 1252(d)(1)'s exhaustion requirement is jurisdictional.. The exhaustion requirement is a nonjurisdictional claim-processing rule subject to waiver and forfeiture.
- Whether exhausting remedies available as of right requires seeking Board reconsideration.. Section 1252(d)(1) does not require seeking discretionary Board reconsideration, including to present an issue not previously raised before the agency.
Docket 21-1436
Cited authorities
- CA10
- CA11
- CA11
- CA10
- 8 U.S.C. §§ 1252
- 8 U.S.C. § 1252
- 8 U.S.C. § 1252
- 8 U.S.C. § 1231
Cited by
- Israel Veliz-Saenz v. Pamela Bondi
- Donis-Hernandez de Cabrera v. Garland
- Brambila v. Bondi
- Mangum v. Ross Dress for Less, Inc.
- Brother's Mini Market Inc. v. United States Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service
- Nemesio Rodriguez-Patlan v. Pamela Bondi
- Romero Cardoza v. Bondi
- D & A Family Deli Inc. v. United States Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service