Background
Noncitizens E.E.V. and M.C.C.-G. sought judicial review of removal orders after the Supreme Court decided Riley v. Bondi, which held that the thirty-day deadline to file a petition for review runs from the date of a final administrative removal order, even if withholding-only proceedings are pending. The government moved to dismiss the petitions as untimely and raised new jurisdictional arguments challenging the reviewability of reinstatement orders and the ripeness of the petitions.
The court’s reasoning
The court rejected the government’s jurisdictional challenges, reaffirming that reinstatement orders are final orders of removal subject to judicial review under eight United States Code section twelve fifty-two. The court found that the Supreme Court’s decision in Riley v. Bondi did not undermine this precedent and that denying review would strip courts of the ability to address nationality claims and other fundamental issues. Regarding the filing deadline, the court held that the thirty-day rule is not jurisdictional and that equitable tolling applies to allow petitioners to file before withholding-only proceedings conclude, following the path mapped out in Riley itself.
What it means going forward
Noncitizens subject to reinstatement orders or final administrative removal orders may now file petitions for review within thirty days of the final order while withholding-only proceedings are still pending, with the court holding the petitions in abeyance until those proceedings conclude.