This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.
In brief
Overview
The Supreme Court held that §1252(d)(1)’s exhaustion requirement is not jurisdictional and therefore is subject to waiver and forfeiture.
Justice Alito, in a concurring opinion, noted that the Court vacated the portion of the Court of Appeals judgment dismissing Santos‑Zacaria’s petition for review and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Background and question before the Court
The case concerned whether the exhaustion requirement in §1252(d)(1) is jurisdictional, which would affect whether waiver and forfeiture rules apply.
What each side argues
Petitioner
Petitioner argues that the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing its improper fact‑finding claim.
According to Petitioner, the phrase “as of right” in §1252(d)(1) has a specific purpose and only the petitioner can give it meaning.
According to Petitioner, an impermissible fact‑finding claim occurs when the Board relies on facts the immigration judge did not consider.
Government
The Government contends that §1252(d)(1) is jurisdictional because it addresses the court and limits review.
According to Government, the Government acknowledges that waiver and forfeiture apply to §1252(d)(1).
According to Government, the exhaustion requirement only demands exhaustion of remedies “available as of right,” not discretionary remedies.
The Government argues that the statute requires filing a petition for review and, simultaneously, a motion to reconsider before the Board.
What happened at oral argument
Petitioner was represented by Paul W. Hughes, Esquire, of Washington, D.C.
Justice Jackson asked whether the Court needed to opine on exhaustion versus remedy exhaustion if the parties agreed on “as of right.”
Justice Thomas asked for an example of another provision using the phrase “as of right.”
According to Justice Sotomayor, the statute did not codify the exact language.
Justice Kavanaugh asked the petitioner to describe an impermissible fact‑finding claim when successful.
The case was submitted after argument.
- [1] ddc3bf4568cec2eb77d9-r1-1c0b8504ef7b5036.pdf, p. 2
- [2] ddc3bf4568cec2eb77d9-r1-1c0b8504ef7b5036.pdf, p. 27
- [3] ddc3bf4568cec2eb77d9-r1-1c0b8504ef7b5036.pdf, p. 36
- [4] ddc3bf4568cec2eb77d9-r1-1c0b8504ef7b5036.pdf, p. 45
- [5] ddc3bf4568cec2eb77d9-r1-1c0b8504ef7b5036.pdf, p. 66
- [6] ddc3bf4568cec2eb77d9-r1-1c0b8504ef7b5036.pdf, p. 77
What the Court decided
The Court held that §1252(d)(1)’s exhaustion requirement is not jurisdictional and therefore is subject to waiver and forfeiture.
Justice Alito (concurrence) noted that the Court vacated the portion of the Court of Appeals judgment dismissing Santos‑Zacaria’s petition for review and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Why it matters
Because §1252(d)(1)’s exhaustion requirement is not jurisdictional, it is subject to waiver and forfeiture.
Terms to know
No glossary terms are available for this guide.
Primary sources
Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.
- 2e72257280457f9149df-r1-523f28ee5dcc03b0.pdfopinion
- ddc3bf4568cec2eb77d9-r1-1c0b8504ef7b5036.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 29, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.