Jose Guadalupe Navarrete, a Mexican national, was originally removed in 2003 for fraudulently entering the United States. He illegally re-entered the country and was later reported to immigration authorities in 2024, leading to the reinstatement of his 2003 removal order. During reinstatement proceedings, Navarrete expressed a fear of returning to Mexico and underwent a reasonable-fear interview. An asylum officer determined he did not have a reasonable fear of torture, and an immigration judge affirmed that negative determination. Navarrete filed a petition for review with the Ninth Circuit challenging only the immigration judge's order denying CAT relief, without challenging the underlying reinstated order of removal. The court had to determine whether it had the authority to hear a petition that did not contest the final order of removal itself.
The court analyzed the statutory framework governing judicial review of immigration orders, specifically 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1), which grants jurisdiction to hear petitions for review of a 'final order of removal.' The court relied on recent Supreme Court precedent, including Nasrallah v. Barr, Johnson v. Guzman Chavez, and Riley v. Bondi, which established that an order denying Convention Against Torture protection does not affect the validity of the final order of removal and therefore does not merge into it. The court explained that while a voluntary departure order merges into the final order because it temporarily suspends the authority to remove, a CAT order merely conditions the manner of removal (i.e., prohibiting removal to a specific country) without suspending the authority to remove altogether. Consequently, a petition for review advancing a standalone claim for CAT relief is insufficient to invoke jurisdiction. The court also addressed the petitioner's reliance on Monsalvo v. Bondi, distinguishing that case as involving a voluntary departure order that did merge into the removal order, whereas CAT orders do not. Finally, the court rejected arguments for prospective application of the ruling and denied a request to amend the petition to add a nominal challenge to the removal order, noting that the petitioner had conceded any such challenge would be baseless and frivolous.
Petitioners in the Ninth Circuit can no longer file standalone petitions for review challenging only the denial of Convention Against Torture relief. To challenge a CAT denial, they must also file a timely petition challenging the underlying final order of removal. The decision clarifies that CAT orders remain separate from removal orders for jurisdictional purposes, preventing courts from hearing CAT claims absent a valid challenge to the removal order itself. The petitioner's request to amend the petition was denied as futile because he admitted he could not assert a colorable claim against the removal order.