Nidal Khalid Nasrallah, a citizen of Lebanon and a lawful permanent resident, pleaded guilty in 2013 to two counts of receiving stolen property, and the government began removal proceedings. He sought protection under the Convention Against Torture, alleging that he was a member of the Druze religion and had been tortured by Hezbollah before he came to the United States. The immigration judge found that he had previously suffered torture at the hands of Hezbollah, ordered him removed and granted protection, blocking removal to Lebanon. The Board of Immigration Appeals disagreed that he would likely be tortured, vacated the grant and ordered him removed to Lebanon. The Eleventh Circuit declined to review his factual challenges. The Court reversed. It held: “A CAT order is distinct from a final order of removal and does not affect the validity of a final order of removal. Therefore, §§1252(a)(2)(C) and (D) do not preclude judicial review of a noncitizen’s factual challenges to a CAT order.” That review is deferential: the agency’s “findings of fact are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” Explaining why a protection order does not merge into the removal order, the Court described its effect: “An order granting CAT relief means only that, notwithstanding the order of removal, the noncitizen may not be removed to the designated country of removal, at least until conditions change in that country.” The person still “may be removed at any time to another country where he or she is not likely to be tortured.” On why Congress would allow factual review, the Court noted that the factual issues “may range from the noncitizen’s past experiences in the designated country of removal, to the noncitizen’s credibility, to the political or other current conditions in that country.” The Court marked the limits of its ruling. In a footnote it stated: “In expedited removal proceedings, the immigration laws do not provide for any judicial review of CAT claims.” On statutory withholding of removal it said: “That question is not presented in this case, and we therefore leave its resolution for another day.” Justice Thomas, joined by Justice Alito, dissented.
Caution The Court described factual review of a protection order as “highly deferential,” under the substantial-evidence standard. The Court left open whether factual challenges to statutory withholding orders are reviewable and stated that its ruling does not affect expedited removal. The statement that a person protected under the Convention may be removed to another country quotes the regulations (8 C.F.R. 1208.17(b)(2) and 1208.16(f)); third-country removal was not at issue. Riley v. Bondi (2025) later relied on this decision in holding that an order denying protection under the Convention is not a final order of removal. The text read is the slip opinion, which is subject to formal revision; page references in 590 U.S. were not checked.
CAT Judicial review Petition for review Jurisdiction Withholding of removal
The court's own text
Public copy Copy held by the Coalition
Read in full from the Supreme Court’s slip opinion of 1 June 2020.
This entry describes a court decision. It is a summary for readers who are learning how these cases work, not legal advice, and it does not tell anyone what to do in their own case. A decision may have been appealed, stayed, or superseded since this entry was written.