Two noncitizens—one of whom was Jesus Guerrero-Lasprilla—had been ordered removed years earlier based on drug convictions that rendered them removable. Long after their removal orders became final, both sought to file motions to reopen their removal proceedings, invoking intervening legal developments that, in their view, affected their removability or potential eligibility for relief. Because motions to reopen generally must be filed within 90 days of a final order, 8 U.S.C. §1229a(c)(7)(C)(i), they asked the BIA to equitably toll that deadline, arguing that they pursued their rights diligently but were previously foreclosed by then-governing precedent. The BIA denied relief, concluding that each petitioner had not exercised the required due diligence to warrant equitable tolling. On petitions for review, the Fifth Circuit dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, reasoning that the diligence inquiry is a factual determination not encompassed by §1252(a)(2)(D)'s exception permitting review of "constitutional claims or questions of law" notwithstanding the criminal-alien jurisdictional bar in §1252(a)(2)(C). The Supreme Court granted certiorari and consolidated the cases to decide whether courts of appeals may review the BIA's application of the equitable-tolling due-diligence standard to undisputed facts.
Does the phrase "questions of law" in 8 U.S.C. §1252(a)(2)(D) permit a court of appeals to review the BIA's application of the equitable-tolling due-diligence standard to undisputed facts in motions to reopen removal proceedings that would otherwise be barred from review?
Under 8 U.S.C. §1252(a)(2)(D), courts of appeals retain jurisdiction to review "constitutional claims or questions of law" raised by noncitizens notwithstanding other jurisdiction-stripping provisions, including §1252(a)(2)(C). The term "questions of law" includes mixed questions—i.e., the application of a legal standard to undisputed or established facts. Therefore, courts may review the BIA's legal determinations applying equitable-tolling standards, such as due diligence, to a given factual record when the facts are not in dispute.
Yes. The Supreme Court held that §1252(a)(2)(D)'s reference to "questions of law" includes mixed questions involving the application of a legal standard to undisputed facts. Accordingly, courts of appeals have jurisdiction to review the BIA's application of the equitable-tolling due-diligence standard in these cases. The Court reversed the Fifth Circuit's dismissals and remanded.
Text. The Court explained that, in ordinary usage and in legal contexts, "questions of law" include more than pure statutory interpretation; they also encompass the application of a legal standard to settled or undisputed facts. The Court noted that this understanding aligns with long-standing practice recognizing application-of-law-to-fact issues as legal in nature for purposes of judicial review. Structure and history. Congress enacted §1252(a)(2)(D) in the REAL ID Act of 2005 to preserve judicial review of legal and constitutional issues notwithstanding earlier jurisdiction-stripping measures enacted in 1996. Reading "questions of law" to exclude mixed questions would thwart that remedial purpose by insulating from review the BIA's application of legal standards—precisely the kinds of rulings most likely to generate the need for judicial oversight. Presumption of review. The Court invoked the strong presumption in favor of judicial review of administrative action. Where statutory text is reasonably read to preserve review, courts should not adopt narrower constructions that preclude scrutiny of alleged legal error, especially in removal cases affecting significant liberty interests. Practical consequences. Treating due diligence as categorically factual would create an arbitrary gap in review: the BIA's misapplication of a legal standard—however clear—would be effectively unreviewable for many noncitizens solely because of the nature of their conviction. Including mixed questions within "questions of law" avoids that anomaly and promotes consistent, uniform application of federal immigration law. Limits. The Court emphasized that its holding concerns the application of law to undisputed facts. Purely factual disputes remain unreviewable under the jurisdictional bars. The decision therefore preserves a meaningful, but bounded, avenue for appellate courts to police legal error. Dissent. The dissent argued that "questions of law" should be confined to pure legal interpretation and that the majority's reading unduly expands appellate jurisdiction beyond Congress's intended limits. The majority rejected that narrow construction as inconsistent with ordinary meaning, statutory context, and the REAL ID Act's purpose.
For law students, Guerrero-Lasprilla is a cornerstone case on the interplay between jurisdiction-stripping statutes, the REAL ID Act's savings clause, and the taxonomy of issues—fact, law, and mixed. It teaches that mixed questions can qualify as "questions of law," preserving judicial review of agency applications of legal standards, such as equitable tolling's due-diligence requirement. Practically, it ensures federal appellate courts can correct legal misapplications by the BIA even in criminal-alien cases, while leaving factual disputes to the agency. The case is essential for understanding administrative law's presumption of reviewability, statutory interpretation in immigration, and litigation strategy for framing issues to secure jurisdiction.
Guerrero-Lasprilla v. Barr reinforces the judiciary's role in ensuring the correct application of legal standards within the immigration system. By holding that "questions of law" in §1252(a)(2)(D) include mixed questions involving the application of a standard to undisputed facts, the Court preserved a meaningful channel of appellate review notwithstanding Congress's jurisdictional limits on certain immigration cases.