Stone v. INS

115 S.Ct. 1537 (U.S. Apr. 19, 1995) ; Clearinghouse Number: 50747

Description

Timely Motion for Reconsideration of Decision Upholding Deportation Order Does Not Toll 90-Day Period for Review of Final Order

Abstract

The Supreme Court has held that a timely motion for reconsideration of a decision by the Bureau of Immigration Appeals (BIA) does not toll the 90-day period for review of final deportation orders under section 106(a)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). Petitioner, a Canadian citizen, had been ordered deported after his release from prison. The BIA denied his appeal of the deportation order in July 1991 and denied his motion for reconsideration in February 1993. Petitioner sought judicial review. The Sixth Circuit dismissed the petition for want of jurisdiction to the extent that the petition sought review of the July 1991 order, the underlying deportation decision. In addition, the court of appeals held that petitioner’s filing of the reconsideration motion did not toll the 90-day filing period for review of final deportation orders. Petitioner appealed. The Supreme Court rejected petitioner’s argument that a timely motion to reconsider renders the underlying order nonfinal and that a petition seeking review of both the order and the reconsideration denial is timely if filed within 90 days of the reconsideration denial. The Court found that, by its terms, section 106(a)(6) of the INA contemplates two petitions for review and directs the courts to consolidate the matters. However, the Court found nothing in the statute indicating that the filing of a petition for reopening or reconsideration dislodges the earlier proceeding reviewing the underlying order; in fact, the Court found that the statute directs that the motion to reopen or reconsider be consolidated with the review of the order, not the other way around. The Court concluded that the statute is best understood as reflecting an intent on the part of Congress that deportation orders are to be reviewed in a timely fashion after issuance, notwithstanding the subsequent filing of a motion to reopen or reconsider. The Court noted that underlying considerations of administrative and judicial efficiency, as well as fairness to the alien, supported its conclusion that Congress intended to depart from the conventional tolling rule in deportation cases.

Additional Information

Attorney Information
Docket Date
1995-04-19 00:00:00+00:00

Files

Filed under: