A Notebook LM review of the June 2025 United States Supreme Court case of Riley v. Bondi, Attorney General, addressing two key issues regarding judicial review of immigration decisions. First, it determines that an order from the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying Convention Against Torture (CAT) relief is not considered a "final order of removal" under 8 U.S.C. §1252(b)(1), meaning the 30-day appeal period does not begin with the BIA's CAT decision. Instead, the Final Administrative Review Order (FARO), which initially mandates removal, constitutes the "final order of removal." Second, the Court clarifies that the 30-day filing deadline for appealing a final order of removal is a claims-processing rule, not a jurisdictional requirement, preventing automatic dismissal of untimely petitions unless the government chooses to enforce the deadline. Justice Thomas's concurrence raises concerns about the Fourth Circuit's jurisdiction to review a standalone CAT order. Justice Sotomayor's partial dissent criticizes the majority's interpretation of "final order of removal" as illogical and creating an incoherent system that forces premature appeals.