Background
Pierre Riley, a Jamaican national, entered the United States on a tourist visa in 1995 and overstayed. After serving a federal sentence for drug and firearm offenses, he was released from prison in 2021 and placed in removal proceedings. The Department of Homeland Security issued a Final Administrative Removal Order directing his removal to Jamaica on January 26, 2021.
Rather than challenge his removability, Riley pursued withholding-only proceedings under the Convention Against Torture, claiming he would face torture if returned to Jamaica. He testified that Andrew Hamilton, a powerful drug dealer controlling his Kingston neighborhood with police acquiescence, had murdered two of his cousins and was now threatening to kill him. Riley submitted detailed affidavits from family members corroborating the threats and confirming that Jamaican police refused to provide protection.
An Immigration Judge, after a thorough hearing where Riley testified, found him credible and granted deferral of removal under the CAT. The Board of Immigration Appeals reversed, finding Riley’s fears too speculative. Riley’s petition for Fourth Circuit review was initially dismissed as untimely. The Supreme Court granted certiorari, held the deadline was not jurisdictional but waivable, and remanded. On remand, the government raised a new jurisdictional objection under a Justice Thomas concurrence that CAT claims can only be reviewed as part of a challenge to the removal order itself.
The Court’s Holding
The Fourth Circuit permitted Riley to amend his petition to include a challenge to his original removal order, curing any potential jurisdictional defect. The court rejected the government’s argument that Riley could not file a purely “nominal” amendment lacking substantive challenges to removability. Following the Supreme Court’s guidance in Riley v. Bondi, the court concluded that noncitizens in withholding-only proceedings who wish to contest only CAT eligibility—not removability itself—may preserve appellate review through amendment without inventing meritless removability arguments.
On the merits, the court found the Board of Immigration Appeals had misapplied the clear-error standard governing its review of the Immigration Judge’s factual findings. Rather than deferring to the IJ’s credibility determinations and factual conclusions, the Board had conducted its own de novo weighing of the evidence, impermissibly substituting its judgment for that of the IJ who had heard Riley’s testimony and observed his demeanor. The court vacated the Board’s decision and remanded for the Board to reconsider under the correct standard of review.
Key Takeaways
- Noncitizens in withholding-only proceedings may amend appellate petitions to include removal orders without simultaneously briefing substantive challenges to removability, permitting meaningful judicial review of CAT claims.
- The Board of Immigration Appeals must apply a clear-error standard when reviewing factual findings made by Immigration Judges, including credibility assessments, rather than conducting independent de novo review of the record.
- The Fourth Circuit rejected the Ninth and Eleventh Circuits’ “colorable claim” requirement for amendments, viewing it as inconsistent with Supreme Court precedent and impractical for immigration appellants.
Why It Matters
Riley clarifies the procedural pathway for appellate review of CAT claims in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision, resolving a circuit split over whether noncitizens must mount substantive removability challenges to invoke appellate jurisdiction over CAT denials. The decision favors access to review for vulnerable noncitizens who face torture absent jurisdictional gymnastics, and it reinforces that appellate courts must respect IJs’ superior vantage point in assessing credibility—a critical protection in CAT cases where believability often determines eligibility.
The ruling has broader administrative law implications, reaffirming that appellate bodies reviewing factual determinations must honor the clear-error standard rather than second-guess findings made by fact-finders with superior access to evidence and witness demeanor. For immigration practitioners, the decision signals that the Supreme Court’s framework in Riley operates to ensure judicial review notwithstanding procedural obstacles, and that courts should permit litigants to cure jurisdictional defects through amendment rather than dismissal.