Background
E.E.V., a Salvadoran national, was removed in 2007, reentered the U.S. in 2015, and received a reinstatement order. She expressed fear of persecution and was referred for withholding-only proceedings, which remained pending at the time of this decision. M.C.C.-G., a Mexican national convicted of theft, received a final administrative removal order in May 2025 and requested review of a negative reasonable-fear determination, which was still pending when she filed her petition.
Both noncitizens filed petitions for review within 30 days after the Supreme Court decided Riley v. Bondi (June 26, 2025), which held that the 30-day deadline to file a petition for review runs from the date a removal order is issued—even if withholding-only proceedings remain pending. However, because their original removal orders had been issued more than 30 days before Riley was decided, the government moved to dismiss the petitions as untimely.
The Court’s Holding
The Seventh Circuit held that the 30-day deadline in 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1) is not jurisdictional and therefore subject to equitable tolling. Following Riley’s recognition that the deadline is not a jurisdictional bar, the court found that principles of equitable tolling apply to extend the filing deadline in cases where a petitioner files within 30 days after the Supreme Court’s intervening decision fundamentally changes the legal landscape.
The court rejected the government’s argument that reinstatement orders—orders reactivating prior removal orders for individuals who illegally reenter after deportation—are not subject to judicial review. Reaffirming decades of Seventh Circuit precedent and finding support in Riley’s statutory analysis, the court held that reinstatement orders are final orders of removal subject to appellate review under § 1252. The court emphasized that without such review, wrongfully deported U.S. citizens would lack any mechanism to challenge their removal in federal court.
Key Takeaways
- The 30-day filing deadline for removal appeal petitions is non-jurisdictional and subject to equitable tolling, allowing courts to extend the deadline in appropriate circumstances
- Noncitizens whose removal orders finalized before Riley was decided can file timely petitions if they do so within 30 days of Riley’s issuance
- Reinstatement orders are final orders of removal subject to appellate review, preserving judicial oversight of identity, prior removal status, and illegality of reentry
- Withholding-only proceedings consolidate with removal order review in a single petition through the zipper clause, allowing comprehensive appellate scrutiny of persecution and torture claims
Why It Matters
This decision potentially affects dozens of noncitizens whose removal orders became final before Riley but who promptly filed petitions after the Supreme Court’s decision. The Seventh Circuit identified over a dozen such petitions filed shortly after Riley, with similar issues pending in other circuits. By applying equitable tolling, the court preserved a remedy for individuals whose filing deadlines were rendered impossible by the intervening change in law—a practical solution to the Riley Court’s acknowledged concern about the timing difficulties created by its holding.
The reaffirmation that reinstatement orders are subject to judicial review carries significant constitutional implications. The opinion underscores that citizenship is “the most precious right” and cannot be forfeited through removal proceedings without access to federal court review. This is particularly important for previously deported individuals who return and face reinstatement, as well as anyone wrongfully caught in the removal system. The court’s reasoning preserves meaningful judicial oversight of the executive branch’s removal authority, preventing potential citizenship errors and ensuring that reinstatement decisions are reviewed for basic factual accuracy regarding identity, prior removal status, and manner of reentry.