The Supreme Court narrowly ruled 5-4 to extend appeal deadlines for undocumented immigrants if they fall on weekends or holidays, reversing a lower court’s decision in a case that could impact countless deportation proceedings.
At a Glance
- Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that deportation appeal deadlines extending to the next business day when they fall on weekends or holidays
- The case involved Hugo Monsalvo Velazquez, who filed an appeal two days after his 60-day voluntary departure deadline because the original date fell on a weekend
- Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote the majority opinion, joined by Roberts, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson
- Justices Thomas, Alito, Kavanaugh, and Barrett dissented, arguing deadlines should be firm regardless of when they fall
- The ruling aligns deportation procedures with other legal practices that accommodate deadline extensions
Case Background and Split Court Decision
The Supreme Court’s narrow 5-4 decision in Monsalvo Velazquez v. Bondi fundamentally changes how deportation appeal deadlines are calculated when they fall on non-business days. The case centered on Hugo Abisai Monsalvo Velazquez, a Mexican citizen who entered the United States illegally in 2004 and faced removal proceedings beginning in 2011. After seeking relief under the U.N. Convention Against Torture, Monsalvo was granted voluntary departure by an immigration court with a 60-day deadline that fell on a weekend.
When Monsalvo filed his appeal on the following Monday (day 62), the Board of Immigration Appeals rejected it as late, and the 10th Circuit Court upheld this decision. The Supreme Court has now reversed this ruling, with Justice Neil Gorsuch writing for the majority that included Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson.
“Here, as elsewhere, the term ‘days’ operates to extend a deadline that falls on a weekend or legal holiday to the next business day.”, said Justice Neil Gorsuch.
Notably, the court’s conservative wing was split on this case. Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett formed the dissenting opinion, arguing that deadlines should remain firm regardless of when they fall, and questioning whether the Court even had jurisdiction to hear the case.
Implications for Voluntary Departure Cases
Voluntary departure represents a significant alternative to formal deportation for undocumented immigrants. This option allows individuals to leave the United States on their own terms and typically carries fewer long-term consequences.
In Monsalvo’s case, had he been formally removed rather than granted voluntary departure, he would have faced a 10-year ban from returning to the United States. The Court’s ruling particularly affects those who choose this option by ensuring consistent application of filing deadlines.
The dissenting justices raised practical concerns about the ruling’s implementation. Justice Alito specifically argued that there was nothing preventing Monsalvo from complying with the original deadline, noting that “the roads to Mexico were open” and that he could have driven, taken a bus, or flown to comply with the departure requirement. The dissenters also maintained that the courts lacked jurisdiction to hear the challenge since it concerned a procedural issue rather than a final order of removal.
Broader Legal Implications
Justice Gorsuch noted in the majority opinion that administrations dating back to the Clinton era have accepted more lenient interpretations of filing deadlines. This ruling aligns deportation procedures with other areas of law where deadlines automatically extend to the next business day when they fall on weekends or holidays. The Supreme Court sent the case back to the 10th Circuit for further proceedings consistent with this new interpretation.
“Petitioner gives us no reason to believe — and I am aware of none — that the roads to Mexico, his home country, were closed; so he could have driven or taken a bus across the border. He also could have flown to Mexico or any other country that would admit him.”, said Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr.
Justice Gorsuch also addressed the dissenters’ jurisdictional concerns by arguing that their position would force undocumented immigrants to file potentially frivolous challenges simply to argue procedural claims. The Court’s decision represents a significant shift in how deportation procedures are administered, ensuring that filing deadlines are consistently applied across the legal system regardless of immigration status. Critics may view this as relaxing standards for illegal immigrants, while supporters see it as applying basic fairness in deadline calculations.
