Opinion of the Court
to filing her petition with the court, she had not satisfied §1252(d)(1)’s exhaustion requirement.
There is disagreement among the Courts of Appeals concerning the two issues presented in this case: (1) whether §1252(d)(1)’s exhaustion requirement is jurisdictional,[1] and (2) whether §1252(d)(1) requires seeking discretionary administrative review, like reconsideration by the Board of Immigration Appeals.[2] We granted certiorari to resolve these conflicts. 598 U. S. ___ (2022).
II
Section 1252(d)(1) provides: “A court may review a final order of removal only if … the alien has exhausted all administrative remedies available to the alien as of right.” The first question before us is whether this provision ranks as jurisdictional. We hold that it does not.
A
A “jurisdictional” prescription sets the bounds of the
- ↑ Compare, e.g., Chavarria-Reyes v. Lynch, 845 F. 3d 275, 279 (CA7 2016) (not jurisdictional), with, e.g., García-Cruz v. Sessions, 858 F. 3d 1, 7 (CA1 2017) (jurisdictional); Lin v. Attorney Gen. of U. S., 543 F. 3d 114, 120, and n. 6 (CA3 2008) (same); Massis v. Mukasey, 549 F. 3d 631, 638 (CA4 2008) (same); Omari v. Holder, 562 F. 3d 314, 318–319 (CA5 2009) (same); Ramani v. Ashcroft, 378 F. 3d 554, 558–559 (CA6 2004) (same); Molina v. Whitaker, 910 F. 3d 1056, 1061 (CA8 2018) (same); Alvarado v. Holder, 759 F. 3d 1121, 1127, and n. 5 (CA9 2014) (same); Robles-Garcia v. Barr, 944 F. 3d 1280, 1283–1284 (CA10 2019) (same); and Alim v. Gonzales, 446 F. 3d 1239, 1253 (CA11 2006) (same), with, e.g., Zhong v. United States Dept. of Justice, 480 F. 3d 104, 119–122 (CA2 2007) (jurisdictional as to remedy exhaustion but not issue exhaustion).
- ↑ Compare, e.g., Olivas-Motta v. Whitaker, 910 F. 3d 1271, 1279–1280 (CA9 2018) (not required); and Indrawati v. United States Atty. Gen., 779 F. 3d 1284, 1299 (CA11 2015) (same), with, e.g., Meng Hua Wan v. Holder, 776 F. 3d 52, 57 (CA1 2015) (required when raising issues not previously presented to the agency); Omari, 562 F. 3d, at 319–320 (same); Mencia-Medina v. Garland, 6 F. 4th 846, 848–849 (CA8 2021) (same); and Sidabutar v. Gonzales, 503 F. 3d 1116, 1122 (CA10 2007) (same).
