Background
Bayron Jose Castro-Fuentes, a Honduran citizen, was ordered removed in 2017 after an immigration judge denied his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. The Board of Immigration Appeals dismissed his appeal, and he did not seek judicial review. After his removal in 2021, he illegally reentered the United States, and the Department of Homeland Security reinstated the 2017 removal order in 2023. Castro-Fuentes acknowledged the reinstatement and declined to contest it.
While awaiting removal in 2025, Castro-Fuentes asserted that he feared persecution and torture in Honduras because he opposed President Xiomara Castro’s politics. An asylum officer found no reasonable possibility that he could establish persecution on a protected ground, and an immigration judge affirmed that negative reasonable-fear determination. Castro-Fuentes then petitioned the Sixth Circuit, arguing that the immigration judge denied him an opportunity to obtain counsel and incorrectly rejected his reasonable-fear claim. He challenged neither the original removal order nor its reinstatement.
The Court’s Holding
The Sixth Circuit dismissed the petition for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. It held that federal appellate jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 extends to final orders of removal and to matters properly raised with such orders. A negative reasonable-fear determination is only a procedural precursor to withholding-of-removal and CAT relief; it neither constitutes a final removal order nor affects the validity of an existing one.
Applying the Supreme Court’s decision in Riley v. Bondi, the court concluded that rulings concerning CAT protection and withholding of removal do not independently support judicial review and do not automatically merge into a final removal order. Because Castro-Fuentes challenged only the reasonable-fear proceedings, the court could not address either his due-process argument concerning counsel or the merits of the fear determination.
The court further held that Riley abrogated Sixth Circuit precedent permitting standalone review of withholding-only and CAT determinations, including Kolov v. Garland and cases relying on it. Although other circuits had treated reinstatement decisions as reviewable removal orders, that reasoning did not aid Castro-Fuentes because he had not petitioned for review of the reinstatement decision.
Key Takeaways
- A negative reasonable-fear determination is not itself a final order of removal and does not independently confer appellate jurisdiction.
- Challenges to withholding-of-removal or CAT proceedings must be connected to judicial review of a final removal order; those proceedings do not automatically merge into the removal order.
- The Sixth Circuit recognized that Riley v. Bondi abrogated its prior precedent permitting standalone review of withholding-only and CAT rulings.
- Because Castro-Fuentes challenged only the reasonable-fear proceeding, the court did not reach his right-to-counsel or substantive fear arguments.
Why It Matters
The decision substantially narrows the route to Sixth Circuit review of reasonable-fear, withholding-only, and CAT determinations. Noncitizens and counsel must identify and timely seek review of a qualifying final removal order rather than relying on a later protection ruling as an independent basis for appellate jurisdiction.
The opinion also adds to a developing circuit disagreement over judicial review following reinstatement of a prior removal order, while leaving unresolved how the Sixth Circuit would treat a petition that directly challenged the reinstatement decision itself.