Monsalvo Velazquez v. Bondi

Docket Number: 23-929
Citation: 604/2
Term: October Term 2024
Argued: November 12, 2024
Decided: April 22, 2025
Lower Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Author: Associate Justice Neil M. Gorsuch
Concurring: Neil M. Gorsuch, John G. Roberts, Jr., Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Ketanji Brown Jackson
Dissenting: Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito, Jr., Brett M. Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett

Read the official slip opinion (PDF)

AI-Generated Summary

Case Summary: Monsalvo Velázquez v. Bondi

1. Case Information:

Case Name: Hugo Abisaí Monsalvo Velázquez v. Pamela Bondi, Attorney General
Docket Number: 23–929
Dates: Argued November 12, 2024; Decided April 22, 2025
Lower Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

2. Facts of the Case:

Hugo Monsalvo Velázquez, a Mexican national who entered the United States unlawfully as a teenager, has lived in Colorado for about 20 years, where he married, raised a family, and owns a business and home. In 2011, the federal government initiated removal proceedings against him. Monsalvo did not contest his removability but sought suspension of removal due to potential persecution in Mexico or, alternatively, permission for voluntary departure.
An immigration judge in 2019 found Monsalvo removable but granted him 60 days for voluntary departure, extending the deadline to the next business day since it fell on a Saturday. Monsalvo appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), which affirmed the removal order on October 12, 2021, and reset the voluntary departure period to 60 days, ending on Saturday, December 11, 2021. Monsalvo filed a motion to reopen on Monday, December 13, 2021, citing a recent Supreme Court decision, but the BIA denied it as untimely, asserting the deadline expired on Saturday. The BIA also denied a subsequent motion for reconsideration. Monsalvo petitioned for judicial review in the Tenth Circuit, which upheld the BIA’s interpretation of the deadline as 60 calendar days.

3. Legal Issues Presented:

Primary Question: Does the 60-day voluntary departure deadline under 8 U.S.C. §1229c(b)(2) extend to the next business day if it falls on a weekend or legal holiday, or does it strictly refer to 60 calendar days?
Nature of Issue: This case involves statutory interpretation of §1229c(b)(2), a provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act as amended by the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA).
Arguments: Monsalvo argued that “days” in the statute should follow a longstanding legal practice of extending deadlines falling on weekends or holidays to the next business day, as initially interpreted by the immigration judge. The government contended that “days” means calendar days, with no extension, as upheld by the BIA and Tenth Circuit, emphasizing the strict statutory limit.

4. The Court's Decision (Main Opinion):

Author & Type: Justice Gorsuch delivered the opinion of the Court, representing a Majority opinion, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson.
Holding: The Court held that under 8 U.S.C. §1229c(b)(2), a voluntary departure deadline that falls on a weekend or legal holiday extends to the next business day.
Legal Reasoning: The Court acknowledged that “days” could mean calendar days in ordinary usage but found evidence of a specialized legal meaning where deadlines extend past non-business days, as reflected in federal rules and immigration regulations since the 1950s. Citing precedents like Haig v. Agee (453 U.S. 280), the Court presumed Congress intended §1229c(b)(2), enacted against this regulatory backdrop, to harmonize with this practice. The Court noted consistent usage within IIRIRA §304, where other deadlines (e.g., motions to reopen) extend similarly, and rejected government counterarguments about regulatory scope, statutory uniqueness, and procedural-substantive distinctions as unsupported by text or history.
Disposition: The judgment of the Tenth Circuit was reversed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.

5. Concurring Opinion(s) (if any):

There are no concurring opinions mentioned in the provided text.

6. Dissenting Opinion(s) (if any):

Justice Thomas (joined by Justices Alito, Kavanaugh, and Barrett as to Parts I and II):
Reason for Dissent: Justice Thomas argued that the Court lacks jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. §1252 because Monsalvo’s petition did not challenge his removability or the validity of his final order of removal, only a nondispositive timing issue. He suggested remanding to the Tenth Circuit to address this novel jurisdictional objection first, citing the Court’s role as one of review, not first view. On the merits, he implied disagreement but focused on jurisdiction.
Justice Alito (joined by Justice Kavanaugh):
Reason for Dissent: Justice Alito agreed with Thomas on jurisdictional remand but dissented on the merits, arguing that “days” in §1229c(b)(2) should mean calendar days per ordinary usage, as voluntary departure can occur any day, unlike filing deadlines. He criticized the majority’s reliance on regulatory history, which applies only to regulations, not statutes, and rejected the consistent usage presumption given differing contexts of filing versus departure deadlines.
Justice Barrett (joined by Justice Kavanaugh):
Reason for Dissent: Justice Barrett dissented on jurisdiction, arguing that Monsalvo did not challenge any part of his final order of removal under §1252(a)(1), as his petition sought only clarification of the voluntary departure deadline, not a change to the order itself. She agreed with Thomas that the Court should not have addressed jurisdiction first and found the majority’s rationale inconsistent with statutory limits.

7. Potential Significance:

The ruling establishes a precedent that deadlines for voluntary departure under 8 U.S.C. §1229c(b)(2) extend to the next business day if they fall on weekends or holidays, potentially affecting numerous immigration cases by providing additional time for compliance. This interpretation may reduce penalties for late filings or departures due to non-business days and resolves a circuit split between the Tenth and Ninth Circuits, promoting uniformity in immigration law application. The decision also underscores the Court’s approach to statutory interpretation by considering longstanding administrative practices, which could influence future readings of similar deadline provisions in immigration statutes.

This summary was generated by AI and may contain inaccuracies. Refer to the official source document for the authoritative text.

Key terms: Voluntary Departure, Immigration Deadline, Weekend Extension