Term: 2019
Docket: 18-1432
Nasrallah v. Barr
- Pro
18-1432 NASRALLAH V. BARR DECISION BELOW: 2019 WL 626456 CERT. GRANTED 10/18/2019 QUESTION PRESENTED: Because of the United States' inviolable obligation not to deport individuals to countries in which they are likely to be subject to torture, individuals who are statutorily ineligible for asylum may request withholding (or deferral) of removal. Such relief is, as courts repeatedly note, a fundamental bulwark to ensure that the government's decision to deport an individual does not result in torture or death. The courts of appeals have deeply and intractably divided as to whether 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C) divests them of jurisdiction to review factual findings underlying the administrative agency's decision to deny a request for withholding (or deferral) of removal relief. The United States has expressly acknowledged the conflict among the circuits, and it has previously acquiesced to certiorari on this question. This case, unlike those before it, cleanly presents the question for review. The question presented is: Whether, notwithstanding Section 1252(a)(2)(C), the courts of appeals possess jurisdiction to review factual findings underlying denials of withholding (and deferral) of removal relief. LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 17-13105
In the case of Nasrallah v. Barr, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that federal courts have jurisdiction to review an immigrant's factual challenge to a denial of relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Nidal Khalid Nasrallah, a Lebanese national and permanent resident in the United States was ordered for removal due to his conviction on receiving stolen property. He sought protection under CAT arguing he would be tortured if returned to Lebanon because of his political affiliations with Hezbollah. The immigration judge agreed but denied him deferral from removal as they found inconsistencies in his testimony about past torture incidents which were upheld by Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) and Eleventh Circuit court stating it lacked jurisdiction over factual challenges. The Supreme Court reversed this decision holding that while some parts of immigration law strip federal courts' power to review certain decisions made by executive branch officials or agencies; these provisions do not apply when an immigrant appeals a final order denying them relief under CAT.
In the dissenting opinion for NASRALLAH v. BARR, Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justices Alito and Gorsuch, argued that the majority's interpretation of 8 U.S.C. §1252(a)(2)(C) was incorrect and expanded judicial review beyond what Congress intended. They contended that this section of law strips courts of jurisdiction to review any final order against an alien who is removable due to committing certain criminal offenses. The dissenters believed this should include decisions regarding whether an immigrant meets requirements for relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). They asserted that CAT claims are inherently linked with removal orders; thus, they fall within the scope of matters from which Congress has removed judicial authority. Furthermore, they criticized the majority’s reliance on statutory structure rather than clear text in their decision-making process.
