140 S. Ct. 1062 (2020), Supreme Court of the United States
Guerrero-Lasprilla v. Barr clarifies the scope of judicial review available in immigration cases where Congress has imposed significant jurisdictional limits.
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.
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.