Judicial Review of CAT Orders in Criminal Removal Cases: Nasrallah v. Barr

Introduction

Nasrallah v. Barr, 140 S. Ct. 1683 (2020), is a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court that addresses the scope of judicial review in immigration removal proceedings, particularly concerning the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The case revolves around Nidal Khalid Nasrallah, a lawful permanent resident of the United States from Lebanon, who was subject to removal proceedings after pleading guilty to receiving stolen property—a violation under 8 U.S.C. §1252(a)(2)(C). Nasrallah sought relief under CAT, claiming he would face torture if deported to Lebanon. The key legal question was whether Sections 1252(a)(2)(C) and (D) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) preclude courts from reviewing factual challenges to CAT orders in cases involving offenses specified under §1252(a)(2)(C).

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court, in an opinion delivered by Justice Kavanaugh, held that Sections 1252(a)(2)(C) and (D) of the INA do not bar judicial review of a noncitizen's factual challenges to a CAT order, even if the individual has committed a crime specified under §1252(a)(2)(C). The Court reversed the Eleventh Circuit’s decision, which had denied such review based on the aforementioned sections. The majority opinion clarified that a CAT order is distinct from a final order of removal and, therefore, the statutory limitations on judicial review pertaining to removal orders do not extend to CAT orders. This decision allows noncitizens in similar circumstances to have their factual claims under CAT reviewed by courts of appeals, albeit under a deferential standard of substantial evidence.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment engages several key precedents to support its ruling:

United States v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919 (1983): Establishing that CAT orders do not merge into final orders of removal.
INS v. CHADHA, 462 U.S. 919 (1983): Affirming that CAT orders do not affect the validity of removal orders.
INS v. St. Cyr, 533 U.S. 289 (2001): Clarifying that final orders of removal are subject to judicial review solely through direct petitions for review in the Courts of Appeals.
Foti v. INS, 375 U.S. 217 (1963): Though overruled in part, it previously interpreted "final orders of deportation" broadly, a stance rejected in this case.
Numerous Circuit Court decisions, including GOURDET v. HOLDER, and Ortiz-Franco v. Holder, among others, illustrate the Circuit split on this issue.

Legal Reasoning

The Court's legal reasoning centered on the interpretation of the relevant statutory provisions:

Distinction Between Orders: The Court emphasized that CAT orders are not final orders of removal as defined by the INA. They do not conclude that a noncitizen is deportable but merely prevent removal to a specific country where torture is likely.
Construction of Statutory Text: A CAT order, while reviewed alongside a final order of removal, remains a separate entity and does not merge into the removal order for purposes of judicial review limitations.
Role of FARRA and the REAL ID Act: These statutes provide for the consolidation of CAT orders with removal orders for judicial review in the Courts of Appeals, supporting the Court's interpretation that factual challenges to CAT orders are permissible.
Standard of Review: The Court upheld that factual challenges to CAT orders are subject to the substantial evidence standard, ensuring that reviews are deferential to the agency’s findings.

Impact

The decision has significant implications:

Expansion of Judicial Review: Noncitizens convicted of crimes under §1252(a)(2)(C) now retain the ability to challenge factual determinations in CAT claims, ensuring a higher degree of protection against potential wrongful removals.
Clarification of Legal Boundaries: The ruling delineates the separation between final orders of removal and CAT orders, preventing the statutory bars on judicial review from being overextended.
Consistency Across Circuits: By resolving the Circuit split, the decision promotes uniformity in how Courts of Appeals handle factual challenges to CAT orders, fostering predictability in immigration law.
Future Litigation: The ruling sets a precedent for how similar cases will be approached, potentially influencing the strategies of both the Government and defense attorneys in removal proceedings.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Understanding Key Legal Terms

Final Order of Removal: A definitive decision by an immigration authority stating that a noncitizen is deportable and ordering their removal from the United States.

Convention Against Torture (CAT): An international treaty that prohibits the return of individuals to countries where they are likely to face torture or inhumane treatment.

Judicial Review: The process by which courts examine the legality and constitutionality of actions or decisions made by governmental bodies.

Substantial Evidence Standard: A deferential standard of review where the court upholds an agency's findings unless they are not supported by substantial evidence.

Sections 1252(a)(2)(C) and (D) of the INA: Provisions that limit judicial review by barring courts from reviewing factual determinations for certain criminal aliens, except for constitutional and legal challenges.

Conclusion

The Nasrallah v. Barr decision represents a pivotal moment in immigration jurisprudence, affirming that noncitizens convicted of specified crimes retain the right to have their factual claims under the Convention Against Torture reviewed by the Courts of Appeals. This enhances the protection against wrongful deportations and ensures adherence to international human rights obligations. By clearly distinguishing CAT orders from final removal orders, the Court upheld the integrity of statutory frameworks while promoting a more equitable review process for vulnerable noncitizens.