Background
Winston Hayles, a Jamaican citizen convicted of aggravated felonies, was subject to a final administrative removal order. He sought deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture, but an immigration judge and the Board of Immigration Appeals denied his request. Hayles filed a pro se petition for judicial review challenging only the denial of CAT relief, without challenging the underlying removal order. He was subsequently deported after his motion for a stay was denied.
The court’s reasoning
The court analyzed three interlocking statutes: the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act, and the REAL ID Act. These statutes channel all judicial review of immigration proceedings, including CAT claims, into a petition for review of a final order of removal. The court held that while CAT determinations are not final orders of removal themselves, they can only be reviewed as part of a challenge to a final removal order. The court found Hayles’s petition did not challenge the final removal order, as it specifically referenced the date of the CAT denial and argued only about CAT eligibility factors. The court also rejected the argument that Hayles’s appellate briefs could amend the petition to add a challenge to the removal order, noting that such a challenge would be frivolous.
The dissent
What it means going forward
Petitioners seeking review of Convention Against Torture denials in the Eleventh Circuit must include a challenge to the underlying final order of removal in their petition for judicial review, or their petitions will be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.