Santos-Zacaria v. Garland
The Facts
Paola Santos-Zacaria, a transgender woman from Guatemala, sought protection from removal based on her membership in a particular social group and risk of persecution. The BIA denied relief and she petitioned the Fifth Circuit for review, raising arguments she had not pressed before the BIA. The government argued the court lacked jurisdiction over unexhausted claims. The Fifth Circuit dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
The Application
Santos-Zacaria raised arguments on appeal that she had not presented to the Board of Immigration Appeals, and the government argued that §1252(d)(1)'s exhaustion requirement stripped federal courts of jurisdiction to hear these unexhausted claims. The Supreme Court examined whether this exhaustion requirement was truly a jurisdictional mandate or merely a procedural condition on the ability to raise certain arguments, and held that Congress did not unmistakably speak to subject-matter jurisdiction in §1252(d)(1). Because exhaustion is a non-jurisdictional claims-processing rule, federal courts retain subject-matter jurisdiction over removal petitions even when a petitioner has not exhausted administrative remedies; the government's remedy lies in procedural dismissal or waiver, not jurisdictional dismissal.
The Conclusion
**The Supreme Court held unanimously that the §1252(d)(1) exhaustion requirement is not jurisdictional and may be forfeited by the government.** Courts of appeals retain subject-matter jurisdiction over unexhausted claims when the government has not timely raised the exhaustion defense.
No circuit court data for this case.
Case Analysis
Overview
A transgender woman from Guatemala seeking withholding of removal failed to raise certain arguments before the Board of Immigration Appeals; the government argued federal courts therefore lacked jurisdiction to hear those arguments. The Supreme Court held unanimously that the administrative exhaustion requirement for immigration appeals is not jurisdictional, meaning the government can forfeit it by failing to raise it.
Facts
Paola Santos-Zacaria, a transgender woman from Guatemala, sought protection from removal based on her membership in a particular social group and risk of persecution. The BIA denied relief and she petitioned the Fifth Circuit for review, raising arguments she had not pressed before the BIA. The government argued the court lacked jurisdiction over unexhausted claims. The Fifth Circuit dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Issue
Whether the requirement in 8 U.S.C. §1252(d)(1) that a petitioner exhaust all administrative remedies before seeking federal court review of a removal order is a jurisdictional mandate or a non-jurisdictional claims-processing rule that can be forfeited by the government.
Rule
Statutory requirements are jurisdictional only if Congress clearly states that they limit a court's subject-matter jurisdiction, as opposed to directing parties to take procedural steps before invoking jurisdiction. The exhaustion requirement in §1252(d)(1) does not unmistakably speak to jurisdiction; it is a claims-processing rule that conditions the petitioner's ability to raise certain arguments but can be waived or forfeited by the government.
Analysis
Santos-Zacaria raised arguments on appeal that she had not presented to the Board of Immigration Appeals, and the government argued that §1252(d)(1)'s exhaustion requirement stripped federal courts of jurisdiction to hear these unexhausted claims. The Supreme Court examined whether this exhaustion requirement was truly a jurisdictional mandate or merely a procedural condition on the ability to raise certain arguments, and held that Congress did not unmistakably speak to subject-matter jurisdiction in §1252(d)(1). Because exhaustion is a non-jurisdictional claims-processing rule, federal courts retain subject-matter jurisdiction over removal petitions even when a petitioner has not exhausted administrative remedies; the government's remedy lies in procedural dismissal or waiver, not jurisdictional dismissal.
Conclusion
**The Supreme Court held unanimously that the §1252(d)(1) exhaustion requirement is not jurisdictional and may be forfeited by the government.** Courts of appeals retain subject-matter jurisdiction over unexhausted claims when the government has not timely raised the exhaustion defense.
Notes
OT2022. Added via SCOTUS bulk import 2026-05-14
Flag an issue
This tracker is maintained by BrynoDC and is free because readers fund it. Support