[Republican Wildcat]

Difficult to tell because this article doesn’t even state what the case was where there was an 8-1 ruling. This is one of worst publications out there.

And guess what? You won’t be able to find this information because such a ruling *does not exist*. The Court issued no opinions. https://journalstar.com/news/national/supreme-court-justices-have-yet-to-decide-any-cases/article_08562513-05bc-5a4a-8f04-192ab5e4f8a8.html

So this is just another in a long line of garbage articles from “The Republic Brief” - embarrassing, yet I guess it will continue to be posted.

[woodpusher]

You won’t be able to find this information because such a ruling *does not exist*.

Correct.

ORAL ARGUMENT at Scotus was heard Tuesday, January 17, 2023.

[TRANSCRIPT] https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2022/21-1436_m6hn.pdf

[AUDIO] https://www.courtlistener.com/audio/84704/santos-zacaria-v-garland-atty-gen/

The case is Santos-Zacaria v. Garland, S. Ct. 21-1436

https://supremecourt.gov/qp/21-01436qp.pdf

21-1436 SANTOS-ZACARIA V. GARLAND

DECISION BELOW: 22 F.4th 570

CERT. GRANTED 10/3/2022

QUESTION PRESENTED:

After the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denied her application for withholding of removal, petitioner Leon Santos-Zacaria filed a petition for review. Although the government agreed that the court had jurisdiction, the Fifth Circuit sua sponte dismissed in part for lack of jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1), which requires a noncitizen to exhaust "all administrative remedies available to the alien as of right."

This holding implicates two circuit splits, each of which independently warrants review.

1. Eight circuits hold that Section 1252(d)(1)'s exhaustion requirement is jurisdictional. Two circuits disagree, holding that exhaustion may be waived. Multiple courts and judges have called for further review of this issue. The first question presented is:

Whether Section 1252(d)(1)'s exhaustion requirement is jurisdictional, or merely a mandatory claims processing rule that may be waived or forfeited.

2. Further, petitioner's merits argument is that the BIA engaged in impermissible fact finding. In these circumstances, the Fifth Circuit, along with three other circuits, requires a noncitizen to file a motion to reopen or reconsider with the agency in order to satisfy Section 1252(d)(1)'s requirement that a noncitizen exhaust "remedies available * * * as of right." Two other circuits, recognizing that "[t]he decision to grant or deny a motion to reopen or reconsider is within the discretion of the Board" (8 C.F.R. § 1003.2) disagree. The second question presented is:

Whether, to satisfy Section 1252(d)(1)'s exhaustion requirement, a noncitizen who challenges a new error introduced by the BIA must first ask the agency to exercise its discretion to reopen or reconsider.

LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 19-60355

- - - - -

[Article] “Respondents sought withholding of removal under the INA based on their fear that, if returned to their countries of origin, they would face persecution or torture,” liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in the opinion.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-322_new_986b.pdf

See Garland v. Gonzalez, S. Ct. 20-322 (June 13, 2022), Opinion of the Court by Alito, J. The opinion of Sotomayor in Gonzalez was not the Opinion of the Court.

ALITO, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C.J., and THOMAS, GORSUCH, KAVANAUGH, and BARRETT, JJ., joined. SO­TOMAYOR, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment in part and dis­senting in part, in which KAGAN, J., joined, and in which BREYER, J., joined as to Parts II–A–2, II–B–2, and III.

From the opinion of Sotomayor, J., concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part:

At 1:

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR, with whom JUSTICE KAGAN joins, and with whom JUSTICE BREYER joins as to Parts II–A–2, II–B–2, and III, concurring in the judgment in part and dis­senting in part.

At 1-2:

Respondents in these two cases are named plaintiffs in two class actions: Esteban Aleman Gonzalez and Jose Edu­ardo Gutierrez Sanchez in the Aleman Gonzalez litigation, and Edwin Omar Flores Tejada in the Flores Tejada litiga­tion. Respondents sought withholding of removal under the INA based on their fear that, if returned to their countries of origin, they would face persecution or torture. See ante, at 2; Johnson v. Guzman Chavez, 594 U. S. ___, ___–___ (2021) (slip op., at 5–7) (explaining “withholding-only pro­ceedings”). The Government detained them pending their proceedings, a detention this Court has held authorized by 8 U. S. C. §1231. See Guzman Chavez, 594 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 1).