What happened
The Seventh Circuit refused to dismiss two noncitizens' petitions for review as untimely, rejecting the federal government's attempt to use Riley v. Bondi to cut off judicial review of removal-related claims while withholding-only and Convention Against Torture proceedings were still unfolding.
The panel said the petitioners were entitled to equitable tolling of the 30-day deadline and rejected government arguments that would have narrowed judicial review more broadly. The court's bottom line was direct: "We deny these motions to dismiss."
The dispute follows the U.S. Supreme Court's 2025 decision in Riley, which held that a final administrative removal order can start the 30-day clock for a petition for review when issued, even if withholding-only proceedings remain pending. Riley also held that the deadline is not jurisdictional, a point the Seventh Circuit treated as central to allowing equitable tolling here.
The two lead petitions were selected from a larger group raising similar post-Riley timing questions. E.E.V., a citizen of El Salvador, filed her petition less than 30 days after Riley while her withholding-only proceedings remained pending. M.C.C.-G., a citizen of Mexico, filed within 30 days after Riley while review of a reasonable-fear determination was pending, and her related withholding-only proceedings later remained before the Board of Immigration Appeals as of the Seventh Circuit's decision.
The government also advanced jurisdictional arguments that the panel said were inconsistent with circuit precedent and with the posture Riley itself contemplated. One argument challenged review of reinstatement orders; another said the petitions were too early, even as the government primarily argued they were too late. The Seventh Circuit rejected both positions, warning that the reinstatement-order theory would foreclose review of issues including CAT protection and even claims of mistaken identity or U.S. citizenship.
A dissent argued that the statutory deadline should not be equitably tolled and that the majority's approach conflicted with Riley and Congress' framework for expedited removal review. The ruling leaves the petitions alive for now and signals that, at least in the Seventh Circuit, noncitizens caught by Riley's timing reset may still pursue judicial review when equitable tolling is justified.