Ovalles v. Barr

Questions presented

SCOTUS records, cert granted 24 Jun 2019

1. Following this Court's judgment in Mata v. Lynch, 135 S. Ct. 2150 (2015), the Fifth Circuit joined all of its sister circuits in holding that the statutory deadline for filing a motion to reopen a removal order is subject to equitable tolling. Lugo-Resendez v. Lynch, 831 F 3d 337 (CA5 2016). In so doing, the Fifth Circuit adopted this Courts standard for equitable tolling from Menominee Indian Tribe of Wis. v. United States, 136 S. Ct 750 (2016). Thereafter, the Fifth Circuit held that it lacked jurisdiction to review the merits of whether a movant (with criminal removability) pursued their rights diligently, thus further dividing a split between the courts of appeals. Penalva v. Sessions, 884 F 3d 521 (CA5 2018). The question presented here is:
2. Whether the application of a legal standard to an undisputed set of facts is a question of law, or a pure question of fact that may be barred from judicial review. Or, more specifically:
3. Whether the criminal alien bar, 8 U.S.C. §1252(a)(2)(C), tempered by §1252(a)(2)(D), prohibits a court from reviewing an agency decision finding that a movant lacked diligence for equitable tolling purposes, notwithstanding the lack of a factual dispute.

Opinion summary

Etalia.ai summary of the majority opinion

The case involved a legal challenge by Ovalles, who faced deportation after being convicted of a crime classified as an aggravated felony under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). The central issue was whether her conviction qualified as such under the INA's residual clause. Previously, in Sessions v. Dimaya, the Supreme Court had found similar language unconstitutionally vague in another context. Ovalles argued that this precedent should apply to her case, rendering her deportable offense invalid for removal purposes due to vagueness concerns. However, the court ultimately upheld Barr’s position that despite similarities with Dimaya's void-for-vagueness ruling on criminal statutes, immigration law operates differently given its civil nature and distinct objectives related to national sovereignty and border control.