In Monsalvo Velázquez v. Bondi, decided April 22, 2025, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that a voluntary departure deadline set in days extends to the next business day when it falls on a weekend or legal holiday. Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote the majority opinion, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson. The ruling reversed the Tenth Circuit and revived a motion to reopen that had been rejected as one day late.1Supreme Court of the United States. Monsalvo Velázquez v. Bondi, No. 23-929
How the Case Reached the Court
Hugo Abisaí Monsalvo Velázquez, a Mexican national living in Colorado, was found removable and granted voluntary departure by an immigration judge. Voluntary departure lets a noncitizen leave the country at their own expense within a set window and avoid a formal removal order on their record. That distinction is significant. A formal removal order can bar reentry for up to ten years and disqualify a person from many forms of relief; voluntary departure preserves the possibility of a lawful return.2U.S. Department of Justice. Voluntary Departure Information
Federal law caps voluntary departure at 60 days when granted at the conclusion of removal proceedings.3Cornell Law Institute. 8 U.S. Code § 1229c — Voluntary Departure Missing that deadline carries a civil penalty of up to $5,000 and a ten-year bar on further voluntary departure, cancellation of removal, adjustment of status, and other relief.
The Board of Immigration Appeals granted Monsalvo a new 60-day period that expired on Saturday, December 11, 2021. His attorney served a motion to reopen on Friday, December 10, but it was not formally filed with the Board until Monday, December 13. The Board denied the motion as untimely, treating “60 days” as 60 calendar days with no weekend allowance. The Tenth Circuit agreed, holding the statutory deadline was a hard calendar-day limit no matter what day it landed on.4FindLaw. Velázquez v. Garland, Tenth Circuit
What “60 Days” Means
Justice Gorsuch held that the word “days” in the voluntary departure statute carries a specialized legal meaning that pushes deadlines falling on a weekend or legal holiday to the next business day. His reasoning rested on the regulatory backdrop against which Congress legislated. Since at least the 1950s, federal immigration regulations have defined deadlines so that when the last day for “taking of any action” falls on a weekend or legal holiday, the period runs until the next business day.5Supreme Court of the United States. Monsalvo Velázquez v. Bondi, 604 U.S. 712
Gorsuch also pointed to the statute’s own structure. Congress enacted the voluntary departure provision as part of Section 304 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996. The government conceded that other deadlines in that same section, including motions to reopen and reconsider, follow the business-day extension rule. “Identical words and phrases within the same statute should normally be given the same meaning,” Gorsuch wrote. If “days” carries the business-day extension for one deadline in Section 304, it carries the same meaning for another.5Supreme Court of the United States. Monsalvo Velázquez v. Bondi, 604 U.S. 712
Whether Federal Courts Could Hear the Challenge
Before reaching the deadline question, the Court had to decide whether it had jurisdiction at all. The government argued Monsalvo was not challenging his removability, only a procedural deadline inside his removal order, and that federal courts therefore could not review it.
Gorsuch rejected that framing. Federal law authorizes courts to review “final orders of removal” and “all questions of law” arising from them. Nothing in the statute, he wrote, “requires an individual to press a challenge to one term in a final order of removal just to secure judicial review of another.” Forcing people to raise meritless challenges to deportability just to open the courthouse door would find no support in the statutory text.6Cornell Law Institute. Monsalvo Velázquez v. Bondi, Supreme Court Text
The Dissents
Four justices dissented in three separate opinions. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the lead dissent, joined by Justice Samuel Alito and, in part, by Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett. Alito and Barrett each filed additional dissenting opinions, both joined by Kavanaugh.1Supreme Court of the United States. Monsalvo Velázquez v. Bondi, No. 23-929
On jurisdiction, Thomas and the others relied on Nasrallah v. Barr (2020) for the view that a “final order of removal” means an order concluding that someone is deportable. Because Monsalvo was not contesting deportability, they argued, the Court had no business hearing the case. Barrett added that the majority effectively let individuals ask courts to rewrite terms in removal orders in ways Congress never authorized.6Cornell Law Institute. Monsalvo Velázquez v. Bondi, Supreme Court Text
On the meaning of “60 days,” Alito argued the term should carry its ordinary calendar-day meaning. He said the majority improperly imported a regulatory definition into a statute that does not reference it, and drew a line between procedural filings, which depend on an agency being open, and the substantive act of departing the country, which can be done any day of the week. In his view, the majority created a business-day rule Congress had not written.6Cornell Law Institute. Monsalvo Velázquez v. Bondi, Supreme Court Text
What the Ruling Changes
For Monsalvo, the decision meant his motion to reopen was timely, and the case returned to the lower courts for further proceedings. His attorney, David Zimmer, told Colorado Public Radio that the ruling meant Monsalvo was “no longer subject to the statutory penalties for failure to voluntarily depart,” which otherwise would have severely limited his ability to seek future legal entry. The underlying removal order itself was not disturbed.7CPR News. SCOTUS Colorado Case Weekends Immigration Timelines
Beyond this one case, the decision aligns voluntary departure deadlines with the weekend-and-holiday extension rule that already applies to other immigration filing deadlines. The American Immigration Lawyers Association, in an amicus brief supporting Monsalvo, argued that a rigid calendar-day rule created harsh consequences, particularly for people without lawyers who must physically file documents at immigration courts that are closed on weekends.8Supreme Court of the United States. AILA Amicus Brief in Monsalvo Velázquez v. Bondi
The jurisdictional holding may reach further than the deadline question. By ruling that federal courts can review legal questions about any term in a final removal order, not only challenges to the underlying deportability finding, the Court opened the door to judicial review of procedural and interpretive issues that had previously been hard to get before a federal judge.1Supreme Court of the United States. Monsalvo Velázquez v. Bondi, No. 23-929
The ruling addresses the 60-day voluntary departure deadline set at the conclusion of removal proceedings. It does not alter the underlying penalties for failing to depart within that window, which still include the civil fine and the ten-year bar on future relief.