We'll hear argument next in case 23, 1270, Riley versus Bondi. Mr. Bradley?

Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court, a sensible scheme of judicial review

would provide a right to review on a petition properly filed, particularly on matters of life and

death where errors left uncorrected are so contrary to the

fundamental policies of the United States. But it also would not have the courts routinely

intrude while the agency is still doing its work. When the agency is deliberating where a non-citizen

can be sent, in light of an objection duly raised in the ordinary processes, that work is

ongoing.

Amicus' proposal would mean that a non-citizen-like petitioner is allowed to seek a

court's decision on withholding issues that the agency has barely begun to assess.

The INA does not suggest that Congress intended that surprising result.

Instead, the statute is consistent with common sense.

Regarding jurisdiction, Santo Saccharia already explained that Stone was not a holding on that point.

The Court should adhere to what it said there.

And certainly, 1252B1 does not rank as jurisdictional under the modern rubric.

I welcome the Court's questions.

Did Petitioner seek a review of the order removal order?

We are seeking — we are not seeking a review of his removability.

We are seeking a review of the

CAT decision, Your Honor. But the, the only jurisdiction we have is over the removal order.

I think that's, I would, I would question that premise, Your Honor, A4 does also allow.

Or a final order. Excuse me, a final order.

...