Supreme Court considers whether 60‑day voluntary‑departure period extends when it falls on a weekend

The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday heard argument in Velasquez v. Garland over whether the 60‑day statutory cap on voluntary departure is extended when the last day falls on a weekend or holiday.

Mister Cedrone, counsel for the petitioner, told the justices the Court should apply the same rollover rule that governs many statutory and regulatory deadlines: when a deadline falls on a legally recognized non‑business day, it carries over to the next business day. "The default rule for weekends and holidays exists precisely to avoid this kind of case‑by‑case guesswork," Cedrone said, arguing that a court reading that departs from the established regulatory definition of "day" would create uncertainty and hardship for noncitizens facing deportation.

Cedrone cited the agency regulation identified in the argument as §1,001.1, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(a), and decades of practice and precedent as support for treating the 60‑day period like other time periods that roll to the next business day. He warned that the government's view would force lawyers and pro se litigants to perform complex historical and textual tracing to determine whether a given deadline falls on Saturday or Monday, "especially when deportation's on the line."

Mister Yang, appearing for the government, responded that the statute's 60‑day maximum should be given its ordinary meaning and not extended when the last calendar day falls on a weekend or holiday. He argued that the voluntary‑departure period governs "primary conduct in the real world," that nothing in the text shows Congress intended a contextual exception, and that the petitioner has alternative administrative avenues (such as APA review) for collateral consequences of an alleged timeliness error. "Section 12 29(c)'s maximum 60 day period for voluntary departure is not extended when the last day falls on a weekend or a holiday," Yang said.

Yang also pressed a jurisdictional argument: he told the Court that the petition does not seek review of a "final order of removal" as required by §1252(a)(1) and that certain collateral consequences — such as retention of a voluntary‑departure bond or bars to reentry — are matters that can be challenged through agency procedures and judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act rather than under the statute's channeling provision. He acknowledged that the government had not raised that exact jurisdictional argument in the court below but said it had been presented in its brief in opposition.

The justices pressed both counsel on consequences and precedent. Several justices — including questions invoking Reyes‑Mata and Nasrallah — asked whether decisions denying motions to reopen or reconsider merge into a final order of removal for purposes of review. Cedrone said courts of appeals have long reviewed BIA decisions rejecting reopening or reconsideration and warned that the government's bundle‑theories of jurisdiction would render many collateral consequences unreviewable. Yang urged restraint and suggested the Court could remand to the court of appeals for further consideration if the scope of the jurisdictional question raised ripples beyond this case.

Practical examples animated the colloquy. Justice Alito and others observed that a noncitizen typically can depart on a Saturday and asked what practical reason would counsel have for a rollover; Cedrone answered that the rule is not simply about court closures but a broader, historically grounded rule that avoids traps for the unwary. The Court also discussed instances in which immigration judges had given the extra two days in practice, and whether that agency practice mattered in statutory interpretation.

In rebuttal, Cedrone characterized the government's jurisdictional argument as a late‑crafted, case‑specific theory and urged the Court to reverse on the merits, saying "there is nothing in the text of the statute that requires" the government's approach and repeating that the traditional rule should apply. After rebuttal, the case was submitted.

The Court's questions reflected concern about both the statutory text and possible ripple effects of a broad ruling: some justices signaled interest in remanding for percolation in lower courts if the jurisdictional issue raises novel, far‑reaching consequences. The Court did not indicate a timetable for opinion issuance; the case is now submitted.