What happened
The Seventh Circuit refused to toss two post-Riley immigration petitions as untimely, holding that the petitioners could invoke equitable tolling of the 30-day deadline while they pursue withholding-only or Convention Against Torture protection.
The panel said the government asked it not only to enforce Riley's timing rule but also to adopt new jurisdictional arguments that would broadly restrict review of withholding-only and CAT claims. The court rejected those arguments and denied the motions to dismiss brought against petitioners E.E.V. and M.C.C.-G.
The ruling turns on the Supreme Court's 2025 decision in Riley v. Bondi, which held that a final administrative removal order starts the 30-day clock for a petition for review when the order is issued, even if withholding-only proceedings remain pending. Riley also held that the deadline is not jurisdictional, leaving room in this case for the Seventh Circuit to consider equitable tolling.
The Seventh Circuit described the two petitions as lead cases selected from a larger group of similar post-Riley filings. The court said it had received more than a dozen petitions from noncitizens whose removal orders had been final for more than 30 days when Riley was decided, but whose withholding-only proceedings or negative fear-determination reviews were still pending.
The panel also rejected the government's argument that a reinstatement order is not reviewable as a final order of removal. The court said Seventh Circuit precedent has consistently treated reinstatement orders as reviewable under 8 U.S.C. ยง 1252, and it rejected the government's separate argument that the petitions were filed too early as incompatible with its main argument that they were filed too late.
As to the individual petitioners, the opinion says E.E.V., a citizen of El Salvador, filed less than 30 days after Riley while her withholding-only proceedings remained pending. It says M.C.C.-G., a citizen of Mexico, also filed within 30 days of Riley while review of her fear determination was pending, and her withholding-only proceedings later reached the Board of Immigration Appeals.
A dissent argued that equitable tolling should not be available under the 30-day deadline and that the majority's approach conflicts with Riley and the immigration statute's emphasis on timely removals. The dissent warned that the result would mean more delay for these petitioners and future petitioners.