Supreme Court Report

Supreme Court of the United States · Official docket →

Ruben Ovalles v. William P. Barr, Attorney General

Paid petition · United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, No. 17-60438 · judgment October 31, 2018

Decided · March 23, 2020
Pre-decision estimate: 7% cert probability (95% interval 5%–10%)

Before the decision, about 1.7× the 4.1% base rate. The model weighted this up for counsel who has won certiorari before, a Fifth Circuit decision below, and a petition filed soon after the judgment below.

Questions presented

Consolidated with 18-776; Granted limited to question 2 presented by the petition, and consolidated with 18-776 for one hour oral argument. Following this Court's judgment in Mata v. Lynch, 135 S. Ct. 2150 (2015), the Fifth Circuit joined all of its sister circuits in holding that the statutory deadline for filing a motion to reopen a removal order is subject to equitable tolling. Lugo-Resendez v. Lynch, 831 F 3d 337 (CA5 2016). In so doing, the Fifth Circuit adopted this Courts standard for equitable tolling from Menominee Indian Tribe of Wis. v. United States, 136 S. Ct 750 (2016). Thereafter, the Fifth Circuit held that it lacked jurisdiction to review the merits of whether a movant (with criminal removability) pursued their rights diligently, thus further dividing a split between the courts of appeals. Penalva v. Sessions, 884 F 3d 521 (CA5 2018). The question presented here is:

  1. Whether the application of a legal standard to an undisputed set of facts is a question of law, or a pure question of fact that may be barred from judicial review. Or, more specifically:

  2. Whether the criminal alien bar, 8 U.S.C. §1252(a)(2)(C), tempered by §1252(a)(2)(D), prohibits a court from reviewing an agency decision finding that a movant lacked diligence for equitable tolling purposes, notwithstanding the lack of a factual dispute.

Counsel of record

For petitioner
Paul Whitfield Hughes
McDermott Will & Emery

For respondent
Noel John Francisco
Jones Day

Case

Conference history
Distributed for 2 conferences

Related
Vide, 18-776

Argument & decision

Argued December 9, 2019 — Paul W. Hughes · Frederick Liu. Audio and transcript

Decided March 23, 2020. Opinion by Breyer.

Proceedings

  1. Apr 24 2020
    JUDGMENT ISSUED.
  2. Mar 23 2020
    Judgment VACATED and case REMANDED. Breyer, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Kagan, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh, JJ., joined. Thomas, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Alito, J., joined as to all but Part II-A-1. VIDED.
  3. Dec 09 2019
    Argued. For petitioners: Paul W. Hughes, Washington, D. C. For respondent: Frederick Liu, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. VIDED.
  4. Oct 25 2019
    CIRCULATED
  5. Oct 23 2019
    Record requested from the U.S.C.A. 5th Circuit.
  6. Sep 13 2019
    SET FOR ARGUMENT on Monday, December 9, 2019. VIDED.
  7. Jun 24 2019
    Petition GRANTED limited to Question 2 presented by the petition. The petition for a writ of certiorari in No. 18-776 is granted. The cases are consolidated, and a total of one hour is allotted for oral argument. VIDED.
  8. Jun 24 2019
    Because the Court has consolidated these cases for briefing and oral argument, future filings and activity in the cases will now be reflected on the docket of No. 18-776. Subsequent filings in these cases must therefore be submitted through the electronic filing system in No. 18-776. Each document submitted in connection with one or more of these cases must include on its cover the case number and caption for each case in which the filing is intended to be submitted. Where a filing is submitted in fewer than all of the cases, the docket entry will reflect the case number(s) in which the filing is submitted; a document filed in all of the consolidated cases will be noted as “VIDED.”
  9. Jun 24 2019
    As Rule 34.6 provides, “If the Court schedules briefing and oral argument in a case that was governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2(c) or Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 49.1(c), the parties shall submit electronic versions of all prior and subsequent filings with this Court in the case, subject to [applicable] redaction rules.” Subsequent party and amicus filings in the case should now be submitted through the Court’s electronic filing system, with any necessary redactions. VIDED. (September 4, 2019).
  10. Jun 17 2019
    DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/20/2019.
  11. May 28 2019
    DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/13/2019.
  12. May 23 2019
    Reply of petitioner Ruben Ovalles filed.
  13. May 08 2019
    Brief of respondent William P. Barr, Attorney General in opposition filed.
  14. Mar 29 2019
    Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is further extended to and including May 8, 2019.
  15. Mar 28 2019
    Motion to extend the time to file a response from April 8, 2019 to May 8, 2019, submitted to The Clerk.
  16. Feb 28 2019
    Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including April 8, 2019.
  17. Feb 27 2019
    Motion to extend the time to file a response from March 7, 2019 to April 8, 2019, submitted to The Clerk.
  18. Jan 29 2019
    Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due March 7, 2019)
  19. Jan 29 2019
    Pursuant to Rule 34.6 and Paragraph 9 of the Guidelines for the Submission of Documents to the Supreme Court's Electronic Filing System, filings in this case should be submitted in paper form only, and should not be submitted through the Court's electronic filing system.