Supreme Court Takes Broad View of Immigration Appeal Deadlines

The US Supreme Court appeared ready to again read filing deadlines as flexible, with some justices expressing frustration that they’re being called on to decide the question over and over again.

The argument heard Monday centers on the court’s efforts to sort out so-called jurisdictional rules from “claims processing” ones. The former impose strict deadlines on bringing certain claims, whereas the latter allows for more flexibility to take into account fairness considerations.

In a string of recent cases, the justices have made clear that if Congress wants to impose a strict jurisdictional rule it must do so unambiguously. Under that clear statement rule, the justices have found that a majority of time limits are non-jurisdictional, or claims processing rules.

Chief Justice John Roberts wondered whether the court’s previous cases mean that the court is “never going to find a jurisdictional bar again.”

And Justice Samuel Alito suggested that the court adopt a test that could clear up the issue once and for all.

“Why don’t we just say it’s a magic words test,” Justice Samuel Alito said, noting that cases trying to sort between jurisdictional and claims processing rules “fill up our docket.”

The deadline the justices considered this time concerned an immigration matter when an appeal must be filed by someone claiming they will be killed or tortured if deported.

Pierre Riley, who overstayed a tourist visa and has now lived in the US for decades, says he’s likely to be murdered if returned to Jamaica by a drug kingpin.

An immigration judge agreed and said Riley’s deportation should be deferred, but the Board of Immigration Appeals reversed that decision.

The US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Riley’s case. It said it didn’t have jurisdiction to hear the appeal because it was filed outside the 30-day deadline.

The case is Riley v. Bondi, U.S., No. 23–1270, argued 3/24/25.