Immigrants who face deportation as a result of poor representation by their attorneys may ask to have the deadlines of their proceedings extended -- and appellate courts have the authority to grant such an extension, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Monday, according to the Associated Press.

"An alien ordered to leave the country has a statutory right to file a motion to reopen his removal proceedings," Justice Elena Kagan wrote in the court's opinion. "If immigration officials deny that motion, a federal court of appeals has jurisdiction to consider a petition to review their decision."

The case, dubbed Mata vs. Lynch, had been brought by a Noel Reyes Mata, an undocumented immigrant from Mexico who in 2010 pleaded guilty to charges of assaulting his girlfriend, a decision that resulted in deportation proceedings, NBC New York detailed.

Mata intended to ask the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), an administrative appellate body within the U.S. Department of Justice, to halt those proceedings. But his lawyers failed to file the appropriate paperwork, and the BIA dismissed his motion.

When the immigrant hired new attorneys and asked the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals to overturn the BIA's decision, the appellate judges said that they lacked jurisdiction to do so. But in its 8-1 ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court disagreed, insisting that federal appellate courts do, in fact, have the authority to delay deadlines for petitioners seeking to reopen a deportation case based on ineffective counsel.

"Of course, the Court of Appeals may reach whatever conclusion it thinks best as to (the merits of Mata's case). What the Fifth Circuit may not do is to wrap such a merits decision in jurisdictional garb," Kagan concluded.

Immigration attorney Kerry Bretz told NBC New York that the Supreme Court's decision could bolster due-process rights for vulnerable immigrants throughout the nation.

"If a non-citizen establishes that his lawyer messed up and the results could have been different, the case should be reopened," Bretz argued. "The BIA has a habit of applying its opinion...in all the circuit courts that have not addressed a particular issue. ... Sadly, the Fifth Circuit failed to do the right thing."