In a closely watched immigration case, the Supreme Court today ruled in favor of Hugo Abisaí Monsalvo Velázquez, finding that the 60-day voluntary departure deadline granted to him should have been extended because the final day fell on a Saturday.
The 6-3 decision, penned by Justice Gorsuch, reverses the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals’ ruling and potentially offers relief to other immigrants facing similar circumstances.
Monsalvo, a Mexican national who has lived in the U.S. for approximately 20 years, was granted voluntary departure by an immigration judge and later by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA).
READ: Army Unveils New Fitness Standard For Men And Women To Bolster Readiness And Lethality
The BIA’s 60-day period ended on Saturday, December 11, 2021. Monsalvo filed a motion to reopen his removal proceedings on the following Monday, December 13, but the BIA rejected it as untimely, arguing the deadline expired on Saturday. The Tenth Circuit upheld the BIA’s decision.
The Supreme Court disagreed, holding that under 8 U.S.C. §1229c(b)(2), a voluntary departure deadline falling on a weekend or legal holiday extends to the next business day.
Justice Gorsuch highlighted a “longstanding administrative construction” within immigration regulations, dating back to at least the 1950s, where deadlines are calculated by excluding Sundays and legal holidays, and later Saturdays.
The Court reasoned that when Congress enacted §1229c(b)(2) as part of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA), it did so against this established regulatory backdrop. Justice Gorsuch also pointed out that the government conceded that other deadlines within the same section of IIRIRA, such as those for motions to reopen or reconsider, are subject to this extension rule. The Court found it logical to apply the same meaning to the term “days” throughout the same section of the law.
READ: Deportation Debate: Numbers Vs. Criticism In Trump And Obama Eras
“When Congress adopts a new law against the backdrop of a ‘longstanding administrative construction,’ this Court generally presumes the new provision should be understood to work in harmony with what has come before,” Justice Gorsuch wrote.
The Court dismissed the government’s arguments that voluntary departure should be treated differently, noting that nothing in the statute suggests such a distinction and that the government itself did not initially interpret the deadline in this restrictive manner.
Justices Thomas, Alito, and Barrett dissented. Justice Thomas, in his dissent joined by Justice Alito and in part by Justices Kavanaugh and Barrett, raised a jurisdictional objection, arguing that Monsalvo’s petition did not directly challenge his removability and therefore fell outside the scope of judicial review under 8 U.S.C. §1252. While acknowledging the merits of the case, Justice Thomas argued the Court should have first addressed this jurisdictional concern.
READ: Trump Says He Has “No Intention” Of Firing Fed Chairman Powell
Justice Alito, in his separate dissent joined by Justice Kavanaugh, focused on the merits, arguing that the ordinary meaning of “60 days” includes weekends and holidays, and there was no compelling reason to apply a specialized legal definition in this context, especially since departing the country is an action that can typically be taken any day of the week.
Justice Barrett, in her dissent joined by Justice Kavanaugh, also raised jurisdictional concerns, arguing that Monsalvo was not challenging any aspect of the final order of removal itself.
Despite the dissents, the majority’s decision means Monsalvo’s motion to reopen, filed on Monday, December 13, 2021, should be considered timely. The case is now remanded to the Tenth Circuit for further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court’s opinion.
This ruling could have significant implications for other immigrants who were penalized for missing deadlines that fell on weekends or holidays, potentially allowing them to seek reopening of their cases or avoid severe immigration consequences. Immigration advocates hailed the decision as a victory for fairness and a recognition of established legal practices.
Please make a small donation to the Tampa Free Press to help sustain independent journalism. Your contribution enables us to continue delivering high-quality, local, and national news coverage.
Connect with us: Follow the Tampa Free Press on Facebook and Twitter for breaking news and updates.
Sign up: Subscribe to our free newsletter for a curated selection of top stories delivered straight to your inbox.
