On April 22, 2025, Goodwin secured an immigration victory before the U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of pro bono client Hugo Abisaí Monsalvo Velázquez when the Court resolved a circuit split over an important immigration procedure timing question in Mr. Monsalvo's favor. The case was argued by former Goodwin partner Jerry Cedrone, who joined the Massachusetts Attorney General's Office as a Deputy State Solicitor after arguing Mr. Monsalvo's case.
Monsalvo Velázquez v. Bondi involves a question about a critical statutory deadline that governs both (i) voluntarily departing the United States after an adverse immigration decision and (ii) filing a motion to reopen removal proceedings based on previously unavailable evidence. Pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1229c, immigration petitioners may be granted a period not to exceed 60 days to voluntarily depart the United States after receiving an adverse immigration decision. Should they fail to do so, a variety of substantial penalties apply, including not just removal and monetary fines, but also ineligibility for most forms of immigration relief for a period of 10 years. However, if an immigration petitioner files a motion to reopen before the deadline of the voluntary-departure period, the grant of voluntary departure is automatically terminated but the penalties associated with failing to voluntarily depart do not apply. 8 C.F.R. § 1240.26(b)(3)(iii).
In 2011, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security initiated removal proceedings against Mr. Monsalvo. He sought immigration relief, and in the alternative he sought permission to leave the country voluntarily. Mr. Monsalvo's petition was rejected, but he was granted voluntary departure, and based on the date of the issuance of the adverse immigration decision, Mr. Monsalvo's 60-day deadline to depart fell on a Saturday. Relying on the general rule in immigration law that deadlines that fall on a weekend or legal holiday roll over to the next business day, Mr. Monsalvo did not depart on the Saturday but instead filed a motion to reopen his case on the next business day. The Tenth Circuit held that Mr. Monsalvo's deadline to depart remained Saturday and did not roll over to the next business day.
In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court reversed, holding that a voluntary departure deadline that falls on a weekend or legal holiday extends to the next business day. The Court also held that 8 U.S.C. § 1252 authorizes challenges to the terms of a final order of removal even where the noncitizen does not also challenge the fact of removability. The reversal of the court of appeals eliminates the severe penalties that Mr. Monsalvo otherwise would have incurred, including a lengthy restriction on when he could apply to return to the United States where his U.S.-citizen wife and children live.
As noted above, Jerry Cedrone argued the case on behalf of Mr. Monsalvo, who was also represented by co-counsel Henry Hollithron from Hollithron Advocates, P.C.; Goodwin lawyers Sierra Perez-Sparks, Jonathan Rankin, and Daniel Farraye; and former Goodwin partner David Zimmer, who is now a founding partner at Zimmer, Citron & Clarke, a litigation boutique in Boston, and who has helped lead dozens of immigration cases in the courts of appeals and U.S. Supreme Court, including Niz-Chavez v. Garland and Pereira v. Sessions.
"We were thrilled to receive the Supreme Court's decision, which frees our client from the onerous penalties for failure to voluntarily depart and clears the path for him to apply to return to the United States," said David Zimmer. "I am grateful to Goodwin for its longstanding commitment to representing noncitizens fighting to remain in this country. Our win on behalf of Mr. Monsalvo is Goodwin's fourth significant Supreme Court victory on behalf of noncitizens in recent years. It was also a privilege to work on this case alongside former Goodwin partner Jerry Cedrone, who was brilliant in his first oral argument at the Supreme Court."
Jerry was the sixth Goodwin lawyer to argue in the Supreme Court since 2018. For the past decade, Goodwin has been at the forefront of some of the most important Supreme Court cases decided in favor of immigration petitioners.