Supreme Court Rules 5-4 That Deportees Get Extra Time When Deadline Falls on Non-Business Day
The Supreme Court ruled 5–4 on April 22 that illegal immigrants who agree to self-deportation should be given extra time to appeal a deportation order if the departure deadline occurs on a weekend or a holiday.
The majority
Gorsuch's opinion was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts, as well as Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson.
Dissenting were Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett.
The petitioner is Hugo Abisai Monsalvo Velazquez, a Mexican citizen who came to the United States illegally as a teenager in 2004.
Monsalvo lived in Colorado and met his wife in 2009. The two were married that year and have two children who are U.S. citizens, according to his
Related Stories
7/4/2024
4/20/2025
In 2011, the government began removal proceedings, holding that Monsalvo was 'an alien present in the United States who has not been admitted or paroled.'
In immigration law parlance, parole refers to allowing someone not qualified for admission to the United States to enter or remain in the country.
He was given a notice to appear, but it did not contain the date and time of the removal hearing, saying the hearing would be held 'on a date to be set at a time to be set,' the petition said.
Monsalvo admitted that the government was entitled to remove him, but filed an application under the U.N. Convention Against Torture to seek relief from removal, claiming he would experience criminal violence if sent back to Mexico.
He also made an alternative request, leaving open the possibility of voluntary departure from the country, a process known as self-deportation.
An immigration court denied his request to block removal and for protection under the torture treaty, but held that he qualified for voluntary departure.
Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, the government may permit a voluntary departure within 60 days when an illegal immigrant of 'good moral character' receives an unfavorable decision in removal proceedings.
If the illegal immigrant remains, he or she may be assessed a monetary penalty and be deemed ineligible for immigration relief for a decade.
The immigration court granted voluntary departure because Monsalvo had been residing in the United States for at least one year before removal proceedings were instituted, was of good moral character, and had both the means and desire to leave the country at his own expense, the petition said.
The court order of March 5, 2019, said he would have '60 calendar days' to leave the country.
This meant the deadline was May 4, a Saturday, even though the judge's order stated Monsalvo's 'application for voluntary departure was granted until May 6, 2019,' which was the next business day after May 4.
He appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals, which upheld the judge's ruling.
The board reinstated voluntary departure and gave him another 60 days to leave the country. Again, the 60th calendar day fell on a Saturday, in this case, Dec. 11, 2021, according to the government.
Monsalvo wrote in his petition that he filed a motion with the board to reopen the case on Friday, Dec. 10, but the board did not accept the papers for filing until the next business day, which was Dec. 13, a Monday.
In the motion, he argued that the Supreme Court's decision in
In that case, the court rejected the government's effort to deport an unsuccessful refugee claimant who argued he shouldn't be removed because official paperwork was incomplete.
In that ruling, the court rejected the government's 'notice-by-installment theory' under which it gave noncitizens incomplete notice by doling out information over time in multiple documents.
Justice Gorsuch wrote in that case that the government must at least supply an individual with a single and reasonably comprehensive statement of the nature of the proceedings against him.
Monsalvo argued that because he received a deficient notice, Niz-Chavez meant he was eligible to ask for his removal to be blocked.
He said that blocking removal was appropriate because removal would inflict hardship on his U.S. citizen children, the petition said.
The board denied the motion on May 4, 2022, finding that in light of the Supreme Court's 2018 decision in Pereira v. Sessions, Niz-Chavez did not constitute a significant enough change in the law to justify reopening the case.
In Pereira, the court held that the government could not put illegal immigrants in immigration proceedings by using a document that failed to state a removal hearing's time and place.
Monsalvo sought reconsideration because the board's practice manual said that when 'a deadline date falls on a weekend or a legal holiday, the deadline is construed to fall on the next business day.'
The board denied reconsideration, finding that the manual's guidance did not pertain to voluntary departure periods.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit denied his appeal, agreeing with the board that he filed his motion too late.
At the same time, that court acknowledged the Ninth Circuit had long held that 'when a voluntary-departure period expires on a weekend or a holiday, the deadline to voluntarily depart or to file motions related to the voluntary departure is continued to the next business days.'
In the majority opinion, Gorsuch summed up the Supreme Court's new holding.
'Here, as elsewhere, the term 'days' operates to extend a deadline that falls on a weekend or legal holiday to the next business day,' he wrote.
Because the 10th Circuit ruled the other way, the Supreme Court reversed its judgment and returned the case to that court 'for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Times
44 minutes ago
- New York Times
Justice Jackson Just Helped Reset the D.E.I. Debate
At the heart of the debate over diversity, equity and inclusion is a question: How much should the law treat a person as an individual rather than as a member of a group? For a very long time, American law and American institutions answered that question unequivocally. People were defined primarily by the group they belonged to, and if they happened to be Black or Native American or a woman, they were going to enjoy fewer rights, fewer privileges and fewer opportunities than the people who belonged to the categories white and male. That was — and remains — a grievous injustice. At a minimum, justice demands that a nation and its institutions cease and desist from malicious discrimination. But doesn't justice demand more? Doesn't it also require that a nation and its institutions actually try to provide assistance to targeted groups to help increase diversity in employment and education and help targeted groups overcome the systemic effects of centuries of discrimination? On Thursday, the Supreme Court unanimously decided a case that was directly relevant to the latter question, and while the outcome wasn't surprising, the court's unanimity — and the identity of the author of the court's opinion — certainly was. The facts of the case, Ames v. Ohio, are simple. In 2004, the Ohio Department of Youth Services hired a heterosexual woman named Marlean Ames to work as an executive secretary. By 2019, she'd worked her way up to program administrator and set her sights higher — applying for a management position in the agency's Office of Quality and Improvement. The department interviewed Ames for the job but decided to hire someone else, a lesbian. The department then demoted Ames and replaced her with a gay man. Believing she'd been discriminated against on the basis of her sexual orientation, she filed suit under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Los Angeles Times
an hour ago
- Los Angeles Times
No Supreme Court win, but Mexico pressures U.S. on southbound guns
MEXICO CITY — More than a decade ago, Mexican authorities erected a billboard along the border in Ciudad Juárez, across the Rio Grande from El Paso. 'No More Weapons,' was the stark message, written in English and crafted from 3 tons of firearms that had been seized and crushed. It was a desperate entreaty to U.S. officials to stanch the so-called Iron River, the southbound flow of arms that was fueling record levels of carnage in Mexico. But the guns kept coming — and the bloodletting and mayhem grew. Finally, with homicides soaring to record levels, exasperated authorities pivoted to a novel strategy: Mexico filed a $10-billion suit in U.S. federal court seeking to have Smith & Wesson and other signature manufacturers held accountable for the country's epidemic of shooting deaths. The uphill battle against the powerful gun lobby survived an appeals court challenge, but last week the U.S. Supreme Court threw out Mexico's lawsuit, ruling unanimously that federal law shields gunmakers from nearly all liability. Although the litigation stalled, advocates say the high-profile gambit did notch a significant achievement: Dramatizing the role of Made-in-U.S.A. arms in Mexico's daily drumbeat of assassinations, massacres and disappearances. 'Notwithstanding the Supreme Court ruling, Mexico's lawsuit has accomplished a great deal,' said Jonathan Lowy, president of Global Action on Gun Violence, a Washington-based advocacy group. 'It has put the issue of gun trafficking — and the industry's role in facilitating the gun pipeline — on the bilateral and international agenda,' said Lowy, who was co-counsel in Mexico's lawsuit. A few hours after the high court decision, Ronald Johnson, the U.S. ambassador in Mexico City, wrote on X that the White House was intent on working with Mexico 'to stop southbound arms trafficking and dismantle networks fueling cartel violence.' The comments mark the first time that Washington — which has strong-armed Mexico to cut down on the northbound traffic of fentanyl and other illicit drugs — has acknowledged a reciprocal responsibility to clamp down on southbound guns, said President Claudia Sheinbaum. She hailed it as a breakthrough, years in the making. 'This is not just about the passage of narcotics from Mexico to the United States,' Sheinbaum said Friday. 'But that there [must] also be no passage of arms from the United States to Mexico.' Mexico is mulling options after the Supreme Court rebuff, Sheinbaum said. Still pending is a separate lawsuit by Mexico in U.S. federal court accusing five gun dealers in Arizona of trafficking weapons and ammunition to the cartels. Meanwhile, U.S. officials say that the Trump administration's recent designation of six Mexican cartels as foreign terrorist organizations means that weapons traffickers may face terrorism-related charges. 'In essence, the cartels that operate within Mexico and threaten the state are armed from weapons that are bought in the United States and shipped there,' U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio told a congressional panel last month. 'We want to help stop that flow.' On Monday, federal agents gathered at an international bridge in Laredo, Texas, before an array of seized arms — from snub-nosed revolvers to mounted machine guns — to demonstrate what they insist is a newfound resolve to stop the illicit gun commerce. 'This isn't a weapon just going to Mexico,' Craig Larrabee, special agent in charge of Homeland Security Investigations in San Antonio, told reporters. 'It's going to arm the cartels. It's going to fight police officers and create terror throughout Mexico.' In documents submitted to the Supreme Court, Mexican authorities charged that it defied credibility that U.S. gunmakers were unaware that their products were destined for Mexican cartels — a charge denied by manufacturers. The gun industry also disputed Mexico's argument that manufacturers deliberately produce military-style assault rifles and other weapons that, for both practical and aesthetic reasons, appeal to mobsters. Mexico cited several .38-caliber Colt offerings, including a gold-plated, Jefe de Jefes ('Boss of Bosses') pistol; and a handgun dubbed the 'Emiliano Zapata,' emblazoned with an image of the revered Mexican revolutionary hero and his celebrated motto: 'It is better to die standing than to live on your knees.' Compared with the United States, Mexico has a much more stringent approach to firearms. Like the 2nd Amendment, Mexico's Constitution guarantees the right to bear arms. But it also stipulates that federal law 'will determine the cases, conditions, requirements and places' of gun ownership. There are just two stores nationwide, both run by the military, where people can legally purchase guns. At the bigger store, in Mexico City, fewer than 50 guns are sold on average each day. Buyers are required to provide names, addresses and fingerprints in a process that can drag on for months. And unlike the United States, Mexico maintains a national registry. But the vast availability of U.S.-origin, black-market weapons undermines Mexico's strict guidelines. According to Mexican officials, an estimated 200,000 to half a million guns are smuggled annually into Mexico. Data collected by the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives illustrate where criminals in Mexico are obtaining their firepower. Of the 132,823 guns recovered at crime scenes in Mexico from 2009 to 2018, fully 70% were found to have originated in the U.S. — mostly in Texas and other Southwest border states. In their lawsuit, Mexican authorities cited even higher numbers: Almost 90% of guns seized at crime scenes came from north of the border. Experts say most firearms in Mexico are bought legally at U.S. gun shows or retail outlets by so-called straw purchasers,who smuggle the weapons across the border. It's a surprisingly easy task: More than a million people and about $1.8 billion in goods cross the border legally each day, and Mexico rarely inspects vehicles heading south. In recent years, the flood of weapons from the United States has accelerated, fueling record levels of violence. Mexican organized crime groups have expanded their turf and moved into rackets beyond drug trafficking, including extortion, fuel-smuggling and the exploitation of timber, minerals and other natural resources. In 2004, guns accounted for one-quarter of Mexico's homicides. Today, guns are used in roughly three-quarters of killings. Mexican leaders have long been sounding alarms. Former President Felipe Calderón, who, with U.S. backing, launched what is now widely viewed as a catastrophic 'war' on Mexican drug traffickers in late 2006, personally pleaded with U.S. lawmakers to reinstate a congressional prohibition on purchases of high-powered assault rifles. The expiration of the ban in 2004 meant that any adult with a clean record could enter a store in most states and walk out with weapons that, in much of the world, are legally reserved for military use. 'Many of these guns are not going to honest American hands,' Calderon said in a 2010 address to the U.S. Congress. 'Instead, thousands are ending up in the hands of criminals.' It was Calderón who, near the end of his term, ventured to the northern border to unveil the massive billboard urging U.S. authorities to stop the weapons flow. His appeals, and those of subsequent Mexican leaders, went largely unheeded. The verdict is still out on whether Washington will follow up on its latest vows to throttle the gun traffic. 'The Trump administration has said very clearly that it wants to go after Mexican organized crime groups,' said David Shirk, a political scientist at San Diego University who studies violence in Mexico. 'And, if you're going to get serious about Mexican cartels, you have to take away their guns.' Special correspondent Cecilia Sánchez Vidal contributed to this report.
New York Post
2 hours ago
- New York Post
Trump rips ‘incompetent' Newsom, LA Mayor Bass amid riots over immigration raids, says masks not allowed at protests
President Trump ripped into California's 'incompetent' leadership and called for a ban on face coverings as masked protesters clashed with federal agents conducting immigration raids across Los Angeles. Trump called out California Gov. Gavin Newsom and LA Mayor Karen Bass for their alleged mishandling of violent riots in response to the ICE raids that wrangled up over 100 illegal immigrants — including gang bangers and drug traffickers — this past week. 'We have an incompetent Governor (Newscum) and Mayor (Bass) who were, as usual (just look at how they handled the fires, and now their VERY SLOW PERMITTING disaster. Federal permitting is complete!), unable to handle the task,' Trump wrote on TruthSocial Sunday morning. Rioters caused carnage in the streets of Los Angeles County on Saturday, which forced Trump to call for 2,000 National Guard troops to Los Angeles despite Newsom's objections. 10 Masked protesters stand on the remains of a burnt car while waving the flags of Burkina Faso and Mexico in Paramount, Calif. on June 7, 2025. REUTERS The troops were set to arrive in the area within 24 hours, US Attorney for the Central District of California Bill Essayli told the New York Times. The violent protesters burned down cars, lit fires, threw rocks and fireworks at police and graffitiied vulgar phrases including 'F–K ICE' and 'KILL ICE.' Trump blasted the nameless protesters as 'troublemakers' and called for a ban on face coverings as the violent demonstrations wreak havoc in California. 'These Radical Left protests, by instigators and often paid troublemakers, will NOT BE TOLERATED. Also, from now on, MASKS WILL NOT BE ALLOWED to be worn at protests,' Trump said. 'What do these people have to hide, and why?' he questioned. 10 President Donald Trump attends UFC 316 at the Prudential Center in Newark, New Jersey Saturday night. Getty Images 10 A masked protester holds a Mexican flag in the middle of the street in Los Angeles County. REUTERS 10 A protester waves a flag in front of a fire set in the middle of the street in the Compton neighborhood of Los Angeles. AFP via Getty Images Footage captured a chaotic scene in Paramount, Calif., as hundreds of protesters filled the streets and faced off against federal agents in riot gear, in an attempt to impede apprehensions by Border Patrol near a Home Depot. Law enforcement agents fired tear gas at the restless crowd. One violent protester in a face-covering helmet hurled rocks at the windows of cars right outside the super store — cracking some Border Patrol pick-up trucks in the windshield, according to viral video. At least a dozen 'agitators' were arrested Saturday for their involvement in the unrest, Essayli announced. 10 California Gov. Gavin Newsom speaks with LA Mayor Karen Bass at a press conference in Los Angeles on Jan. 23, 2025. AFP via Getty Images 10 Masked protesters wearing safety goggles move away from law enforcement agents in Compton, Calif. AP Homeland Security Secretary Krisi Noem warned rioters of arrests if they harmed law enforcement officers. Trump praised the National Guard troops he had called in to take over crowd control operations to quell the unrest. 'Great job by the National Guard in Los Angeles after two days of violence, clashes and unrest,' Trump wrote. 10 Los Angeles County Sheriff's deputies form a line in riot gear during a standoff with protesters. AFP via Getty Images 10 Fireworks are thrown at sheriff's deputies in the streets of Compton. AFP via Getty Images Newsom claimed Trump's orders were what caused the chaos in his state. 'The federal government is sowing chaos so they can have an excuse to escalate. That is not the way any civilized country behaves,' Newsom wrote on X. The 78-year-old commander in chief had already called out Newsom and Bass earlier Saturday before he ordered the National Guard. 'If Governor Gavin Newscum, of California, and Mayor Karen Bass, of Los Angeles, can't do their jobs, which everyone knows they can't, then the Federal Government will step in and solve the problem, RIOTS & LOOTERS, the way it should be solved!!!,' the president. 10 A sheriff's deputy holds back masked protesters during a daytime riot in Paramount, Calif. REUTERS 10 Protesters put up a roadblock near a fire in the streets of Compton. AFP via Getty Images Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth announced the Department of Defense was mobilizing the National Guard while nearby military bases were put on alert. 'If violence continues, active duty Marines at Camp Pendleton will also be mobilized — they are on high alert,' Hegseth wrote on X Saturday.
