Santos-Zacaria v. Garland
| Santos-Zacaria v. Garland | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Decided May 11, 2023 | |
| Full case name | Santos-Zacaria v. Garland |
| Docket no. | 21-1436 |
| Citations | 598 U.S. ___ (more) |
| Holding | |
| The requirement that a noncitizen facing a removal order must exhaust all administrative remedies before seeking judicial review of the removal order is not jurisdictional. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Jackson, joined by unanimous |
| Concurrence | Alito (in judgment), joined by Thomas |
Santos-Zacaria v. Garland, 598 U.S. ___ (2023), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that the requirement that a noncitizen facing a removal order must exhaust all administrative remedies before seeking judicial review of the removal order is not jurisdictional. In other words, the exhaustion requirement does not limit courts' authority to hear the noncitizen's case, and courts cannot unilaterally refuse to hear a case where the requirement has not been satisfied. Further, the court clarified 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 the exhaustion requirement.[1][2]
References
[edit]External links
[edit]This article incorporates written opinion of a United States federal court. As a work of the U.S. federal government, the text is in the public domain. "[T]he Court is unanimously of opinion that no reporter has or can have any copyright in the written opinions delivered by this Court." Wheaton v. Peters, 33 U.S. (8 Pet.) 591, 668 (1834)
 | This article related to the Supreme Court of the United States is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. |