Monsalvo Velázquez v. Bondi

The Supreme Court case Monsalvo Velázquez v. Bondi, decided on April 22, 2025, deals with how to interpret the voluntary departure deadline under U.S. immigration law, specifically 8 U.S.C. §1229c(b)(2). Here's a detailed summary:

🧾 Background:

Hugo Abisaí Monsalvo Velázquez, a long-time undocumented resident of Colorado, faced removal proceedings. He requested:

Relief from removal due to fear of persecution in Mexico.

Alternatively, voluntary departure to avoid the penalties of forced removal.

The Immigration Judge found him removable, denied persecution relief, but granted 60 days for voluntary departure.

After appealing, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) reset the 60-day voluntary departure clock upon denying his appeal.

🗓 The Key Legal Dispute:

The BIA’s 60-day deadline fell on Saturday, December 11, 2021. Monsalvo:

Filed a motion to reopen his case on Monday, December 13 (after the weekend).

The BIA denied the motion as untimely, stating the deadline expired on Saturday, and penalties for failure to depart (including a 10-year bar on immigration benefits) applied.

⚖️ Supreme Court’s Ruling:

The Court held in favor of Monsalvo, reversing the Tenth Circuit.

1. Jurisdiction (pp. 6–11):

The government argued courts lacked jurisdiction since Monsalvo didn’t challenge his removability, only the timing of the departure deadline.

The Supreme Court rejected that view:

Judicial review under 8 U.S.C. §1252 allows review of “final orders of removal” and “all questions of law” arising from them.

It would be improper to require people to raise meritless removability challenges just to preserve judicial review of other legal questions (like deadlines).

2. Statutory Interpretation (pp. 11–18):

The statute at issue: 8 U.S.C. §1229c(b)(2) says voluntary departure may be granted “for a period not exceeding 60 days.”

The BIA and Tenth Circuit interpreted this to mean strict calendar days, including weekends.

The Supreme Court disagreed, applying a specialized legal meaning from longstanding regulatory practice:

Legal deadlines that fall on weekends or holidays are typically extended to the next business day.

This has been federal immigration practice since the 1950s, reaffirmed in multiple regulations.

Key Supporting Points:

Congress legislated §1229c(b)(2) against a regulatory backdrop that already extended such deadlines.

Identical terms like “days” in the same statute (IIRIRA §304) for filing motions (e.g., reopen or reconsider) are interpreted using that practice.

No text in §1229c(b)(2) shows Congress intended to depart from this norm.

🧑‍⚖️ Outcome:

Holding: The 60-day voluntary departure period does extend to the next business day if the deadline falls on a weekend or holiday.

Result: The Court reversed the Tenth Circuit’s ruling and remanded the case for further proceedings.

✍️ Notes on Opinions:

Majority (Justice Gorsuch): Joined by Roberts, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson.

Dissent: Thomas (joined by Alito, Kavanaugh, Barrett in part), Alito (separately), and Barrett (separately) dissented on jurisdiction and interpretation.