Nasrallah v. Barr

Nidal Khalid Nasrallah, a native and citizen of Lebanon, entered the United States on a tourist visa in 2006 and later became a lawful permanent resident. After pleading guilty to receiving stolen property in 2011, the government sought to remove him to Lebanon. Nasrallah applied for relief under the United Nations Convention Against Torture (CAT), claiming he would be tortured if returned. An immigration judge granted CAT relief, but the Board of Immigration Appeals vacated that order and ordered his removal. The Eleventh Circuit declined to review Nasrallah's factual challenges to the CAT order, citing a jurisdictional bar for criminal noncitizens. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the bar on reviewing final removal orders does not preclude judicial review of factual challenges to a CAT order.

The Supreme Court held in a 7-2 decision that Sections 1252(a)(2)(C) and (D) do not preclude judicial review of a noncitizen's factual challenges to a CAT order. The judgment was reversed and the case was remanded for further proceedings. Justice Kavanaugh wrote the majority opinion, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Gorsuch. Justice Thomas dissented, joined by Justice Alito.

Whether Section 1252(a)(2)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which limits judicial review of final orders of removal for noncitizens convicted of certain crimes, prohibits federal courts of appeals from reviewing the factual findings underlying the denial of relief under the Convention Against Torture.

The decision expanded the ability of criminal noncitizens to obtain judicial review of factual findings related to their Convention Against Torture claims, ensuring that appellate courts can examine whether the denial of CAT relief was based on accurate factual determinations. This ruling affects numerous immigration cases where individuals convicted of certain crimes seek protection from removal to countries where they face a likelihood of torture.