Supreme Court of the United States

Name: Santos-Zacaria v. Garland
Author: Supreme Court of the United States

Santos-Zacaria v. Garland (2023)

Summary

“Santos-Zacaria v. Garland”, published in 2023, is a work by Supreme Court of the United States. It explores elements such as noncitizen, reconsideration and exhaustion.

Quotes from Santos-Zacaria v. Garland (Supreme Court of the United States)

Supreme Court of the United States, Santos-Zacaria v. Garland (2023)

“ So in the Government’s view, a motion to reconsider is required when it is the only remaining mechanism for presenting a new issue, but not when the noncitizen has already presented every issue to the agency in other ways. [9]
That is not the scheme Congress adopted. Section 1252 (d) (1) does not require noncitizens to give the agency an opportunity to consider an objection using every mechanism available. It requires exhausting only administrative remedies “available ... as of right.” And we do not see how seeking reconsideration can qualify sometimes and not others. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Supreme Court of the United States, Santos-Zacaria v. Garland (2023)

“ But jurisdictional treatment can result in the opposite: If exhaustion is jurisdictional, litigants must slog through preliminary nonjudicial proceedings even when, for example, no party demands it or a court finds it would be pointless, wasteful, or too slow. Similarly, an exhaustion objection raised late in litigation (as jurisdictional objections can be) might derail “many months of work on the part of the attorneys and the court.” Henderson, 562 U. S., at 434–435 (jurisdictional rules risk “the waste of judicial resources and may unfairly prejudice litigants”) . ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Supreme Court of the United States, Santos-Zacaria v. Garland (2023)

“ Under 8 U. S. C. §1252 (d) (1) , a noncitizen who seeks to challenge an order of removal in court must first exhaust certain administrative remedies. This case presents two questions regarding that statutory provision. For the reasons explained below, we hold that §1252 (d) (1) is not jurisdictional. We hold further that a noncitizen need not request discretionary forms of administrative review, like reconsideration of an unfavorable Board of Immigration Appeals determination, in order to satisfy §1252 (d) (1) ’s exhaustion requirement. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Supreme Court of the United States, Santos-Zacaria v. Garland (2023)

“ Indeed, we have yet to hold that any statutory exhaustion requirement is jurisdictional when applying the clear-statement rule that we adopted in Arbaugh.
Exhaustion is typically nonjurisdictional for good reason. Jurisdictional treatment of an exhaustion requirement could undo the benefits of exhaustion. That is, exhaustion promotes efficiency, including by encouraging parties to resolve their disputes without litigation. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Supreme Court of the United States, Santos-Zacaria v. Garland (2023)

“ Reg. 18904 (1996) ; see Dada v. Mukasey, 554 U. S. 1, 12–13 (2008) (tracing history of discretion to reopen back to 1916) . That means a noncitizen can request reconsideration. But only if “the motion to reconsider is granted” does the Board proceed to make the “decision upon such reconsideration” as to whether to “affirm, modify, or reverse the original decision.” 8 CFR §1003.2 (i) . And, again, whether to grant the motion to reconsider, and thus proceed to such review, is up to the Board in its discretion. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Supreme Court of the United States, Santos-Zacaria v. Garland (2023)

“ Indeed, Stone predates our cases, starting principally with Arbaugh in 2006, that “bring some discipline to the use of th [e] term” “jurisdictional.” Henderson, 562 U. S., at 435. Nken came later, but it never addressed the Arbaugh line of cases. And in both Stone and Nken, whether the provisions were jurisdictional “was not central to the case.” Reed Elsevier, 559 U. S., at 161. On top of all that, neither case addressed the exhaustion requirement specifically. Instead, both merely mentioned the section of the Immigration and Nationality Act that housed the exhaustion requirement. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Supreme Court of the United States, Santos-Zacaria v. Garland (2023)

“ Kwai Fun Wong, 575 U. S. 402, 410 (2015) . So it is here. We routinely “trea [t] as nonjurisdictional ... threshold requirements that claimants must complete, or exhaust, before filing a lawsuit.” Reed Elsevier, Inc. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Supreme Court of the United States, Santos-Zacaria v. Garland (2023)

“ United States Dept. of Justice, 480 F. 3d 104, 119–122 (CA2 2007) (jurisdictional as to remedy exhaustion but not issue exhaustion) . ↑ Compare, e.g., Olivas-Motta v. Whitaker, 910 F. 3d 1271, 1279–1280 (CA9 2018) (not required) ; and Indrawati v. United States Atty. Gen., 779 F. 3d 1284, 1299 (CA11 2015) (same) , with, e.g., Meng Hua Wan v. Holder, 776 F. 3d 52, 57 (CA1 2015) (required when raising issues not previously presented to the agency) ; Omari, 562 F. 3d, at 319–320 (same) ”

Supreme Court of the United States

Summary

Quotes from Santos-Zacaria v. Garland (Supreme Court of the United States)

Common terms

Similar works

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature