Case No. 18-1432 | 11th Cir.
Preview by Megan Walden
In Nasrallah v. Barr, the Court will resolve a long-standing circuit split in immigration law and determine whether the Court of Appeals has jurisdiction to review findings of fact in denials of withholding and deferral of removal cases.
Nidal Khalid Nasrallah, a Lebanese citizen, became a lawful permanent resident of the United States in 2007. In 2011, he pled guilty to two counts of receiving stolen property in interstate commerce. Based on these convictions, the government sought to remove Nasrallah from the United States as an alien convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude. An immigration judge determined that although Nasrallah’s crime was a crime involving moral turpitude, Nasrallah was eligible for deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture because he had established a clear probability that he would be tortured on account of his religion and ties to the west if he returned to Lebanon.
On appeal, the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) determined that the immigration judge had erred in granting Nasrallah relief from removal, and the BIA reinstated the removal order. Nasrallah appealed this decision to the Eleventh Circuit, asking the court to reconsider the factual findings of the removal order. The Eleventh Circuit dismissed the appeal in part based on jurisdiction, reasoning that under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2), the court did not have jurisdiction to review the factual findings underlying his denial of removal relief.
Circuit courts are currently split 8-2 on this issue of reviewability. While the Seventh and Ninth Circuits currently consider both findings of fact and law in reviewing denials of deferral of removal, eight other circuits have determined that federal courts may only consider issues of law and constitutional claims in such reviews.
Law professors, legal services providers, and former immigration judges have submitted amici curiae in support of judicial review of findings of fact in these cases. These amici emphasize that relief under the Convention Against Torture affords a unique and absolute guarantee of protection from torture and argue that Congress did not intend to restrict judicial review for this important human rights protection.