## Facts

- Two noncitizens were convicted of drug offenses and ordered removed (one by an immigration judge in 1998; the other by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) in 2004).
- Both removal orders became administratively final, and both individuals departed the United States.
- Years later, intervening legal developments made each newly eligible to seek certain discretionary relief.
- Each filed a motion to reopen removal proceedings after the statutory 90-day deadline, requesting equitable tolling of the deadline.
- The BIA denied the motions, concluding each movant failed to show the due diligence required for equitable tolling.
- The Fifth Circuit dismissed their petitions for review for lack of jurisdiction, treating the due-diligence determination as a factual question outside the scope of review permitted in criminal-removal cases.
- The Supreme Court granted review to decide whether the statutory phrase “questions of law” permits appellate review of the application of a legal standard to undisputed or established facts.

## Issues

1. Whether “questions of law” in 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D) includes mixed questions involving the application of a legal standard to undisputed or established facts.
2. Whether courts of appeals have jurisdiction under § 1252(a)(2)(D) to review the BIA’s due-diligence determinations related to equitable tolling of the 90-day deadline for motions to reopen in criminal-removal cases.

## Decision

- The Court held (7–2) that “questions of law” in § 1252(a)(2)(D) includes the application of a legal standard to undisputed or established facts.
- The Fifth Circuit therefore erred in concluding it lacked jurisdiction to consider petitioners’ claims that the BIA misapplied equitable tolling’s due-diligence requirement.
- The Court vacated the Fifth Circuit’s judgments and remanded for further proceedings.

## Legal Principles

- Under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D), the term “questions of law” includes review of mixed questions that apply a legal standard to undisputed or established facts.
- Even where judicial review is otherwise limited in criminal-removal cases, § 1252(a)(2)(D) preserves appellate jurisdiction over constitutional claims and questions of law, including such mixed questions.
- A claim that the BIA incorrectly applied equitable tolling’s due-diligence standard to undisputed facts falls within § 1252(a)(2)(D)’s scope of review.

## Conclusion

The Court clarified that § 1252(a)(2)(D) permits courts of appeals to review the BIA’s application of legal standards to undisputed facts, restoring jurisdiction to consider whether equitable tolling’s due-diligence requirement was properly applied in these criminal-removal cases.


Guerrero-Lasprilla v. Barr, 140 S. Ct. 1062 (2020)