Background
Noncitizens E.E.V. and M.C.C.-G. sought judicial review of removal orders after filing petitions for review more than thirty days after their removal orders became final but within thirty days of the Supreme Court’s decision in Riley v. Bondi. Their withholding-only proceedings or reasonable-fear determinations were still pending at the time of filing. 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, holding that reinstatement orders are final orders of removal under the definition provided in Riley v. Bondi. The court found that denying judicial review of reinstatement orders would strip courts of the ability to address nationality claims and other fundamental questions. Regarding the filing deadline, the court followed Riley’s path, concluding that the thirty-day rule is not jurisdictional and that equitable tolling applies to allow petitioners to file while withholding proceedings remain pending. The court also dismissed the government’s ripeness argument, noting that Riley itself anticipated and provided a solution for this procedural reality.
What it means going forward
Noncitizens subject to reinstatement orders and final administrative removal orders may now file petitions for review within thirty days of the issuance of a final order even if their requests for withholding of removal or Convention Against Torture relief are still pending, provided they seek equitable tolling.