The recent ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court on October 13, 2023, regarding the case of Monsalvo Velazquez v Bondi, Attorney General, may not have captured widespread attention, but it holds significant implications for individuals facing deportation.
The decision has the potential to change Velazquez’s future, offering him a pathway toward legal re-entry into the United States instead of permanent banishment.
Born in Mexico, Velazquez entered the U.S. without authorization as a teenager, having lived in Colorado for two decades.
His life in the U.S. has included high school and college attendance, marriage, and parenting two American-born children while owning a small business near Denver.
In 2011, U.S. immigration authorities initiated deportation proceedings against Velazquez.
While he acknowledged that he entered the country illegally, he requested to suspend removal efforts, citing fears of persecution should he return to Mexico.
Eight years later, an immigration judge rejected Velazquez’s claim of possible persecution but did find him eligible for “voluntary departure,” granting him 60 days to leave the country.
Interestingly, the end of that 60-day period landed on a Saturday, prompting the judge to extend the deadline to the following Monday.
Velazquez subsequently appealed the denial of his persecution claim to the Board of Immigration Appeals, but they too dismissed his arguments.
They granted him an additional 60 days for voluntary departure but warned of serious penalties if he did not comply with the new deadline, which was set for December 11, 2021—also a Saturday.
Unlike the first instance, the judge did not mention extending this second deadline to the following Monday.
In an effort to keep his case open, Velazquez’s legal team filed a motion to reopen his case just one day before the December deadline.
However, the Board did not officially accept the motion until December 13, 2021, after the deadline had passed, subsequently denying it for being late.
This led to the issuance of a removal order against Velazquez, which would have severely complicated his ability to re-enter the U.S. legally in the future.
Initially, the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the deadline had indeed expired on December 11, which would leave Velazquez facing deportation.
However, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a decision authored by Justice Neil Gorsuch, reversed that ruling, stating that deadlines in immigration law should extend to the next business day when they fall on weekends or legal holidays.
Justice Gorsuch emphasized that this interpretation of deadlines is critical for those navigating the immigration system.
“The way we see it … the deadline works like others found in immigration law,” Gorsuch wrote, reinforcing the notion that statutory interpretation significantly impacts individuals in similar situations.
The dissenting opinions from Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, along with partial agreement from Justice Brett Kavanaugh, contrasted with Gorsuch’s majority opinion.
One of Velazquez’s attorneys, David Zimmer, noted the ruling’s main implication: Velazquez is no longer subject to the severe penalties associated with failure to voluntarily depart.
These penalties could have created obstacles for Velazquez if he were to attempt to return to the U.S. legally in the future.
“Those penalties were severe,” Zimmer remarked, highlighting the gravity of the situation for individuals like Velazquez.
The ruling means that anyone given a departure order on a weekend may be able to remain until the next business day, offering a crucial breathing space in immigration matters.
Justice Gorsuch remarked on the importance of statutory interpretation in these cases, stating that it affects not just timing issues, but also repercussions tied to detention, removal, and legal status.
While the Supreme Court’s ruling provides Velazquez with a vital opportunity, it does not change the fact that he has been ordered to leave the country.
Questions remain about Velazquez’s current status and whether he has chosen to voluntarily leave the U.S., as none of his attorneys have responded to inquiries regarding his situation.
As the court’s decision resonates, it underscores the critical role of legal interpretation in navigating complex immigration issues, with profound consequences for the lives of individuals involved.
image source from：https://www.cpr.org/2025/04/24/scotus-colorado-case-weekends-immigration-timelines/
