What happened
The Seventh Circuit denied the federal government’s motions to dismiss two immigration petitions for review as untimely, holding that the petitioners were entitled to equitable tolling after the U.S. Supreme Court’s Riley v. Bondi decision changed when the 30-day filing clock starts for withholding-only cases.
Writing for the court, Judge David F. Hamilton said the government’s arguments would more broadly block judicial review for many noncitizens seeking withholding of removal or Convention Against Torture protection. The court rejected those arguments and said, “We deny these motions to dismiss.”
The decision arose from petitions by E.E.V. and M.C.C.-G., noncitizens seeking review while pursuing withholding of removal or CAT-related protection because they feared persecution or torture if removed. Before Riley, binding Seventh Circuit precedent required similarly situated petitioners to wait until administrative proceedings were complete before filing petitions for judicial review.
Riley changed that timing rule. The Supreme Court held that a final administrative removal order starts the 30-day deadline even if withholding-only proceedings remain pending, because “withholding-only proceedings do not disturb the finality of an otherwise final order of removal.” The Seventh Circuit said E.E.V. and M.C.C.-G. filed within 30 days after Riley, even though their underlying removal orders had become final earlier.
The panel also rejected jurisdictional challenges, including the government’s argument that a reinstatement order is not a reviewable final order of removal and its argument that the petitions were filed too early. The opinion said Seventh Circuit precedent has consistently treated reinstatement orders as final orders of removal subject to judicial review under Section 1252.
The ruling matters because it preserves a route to appellate review for noncitizens caught between old circuit precedent and Riley’s new filing rule. It also signals that the Seventh Circuit will not read Riley to close the courthouse door to placeholder petitions filed while withholding-only or fear-review proceedings continue.
A dissent argued equitable tolling should not be available under Section 1252(b)(1), criticizing the majority’s reliance on Oxlaj-Perez and warning that tolling undermines Congress’ goal of expedited removal review. But the majority’s bottom-line ruling leaves the petitions pending rather than dismissed at the threshold.