These summaries are not intended as legal advice. Please contact a licensed attorney to discuss the specifics of your case.
Viewing entries tagged
withholding only proceedings
The Third Circuit has determined that the 30-day deadline to file a petition for review of a final removal order is a claims processing rule, not a jurisdictional rule. The court also determined that a reinstatement order is not administratively final until a final agency decision is issued on the applicant’s withholding of removal and CAT applications.
The full text of Inestroza-Tosta v. Attorney General can be found here:
The Fourth Circuit has affirmed the denial of habeas relief to a non-citizen subject to on-going withholding-only proceedings, finding that his removal was still reasonably foreseeable, despite the length of his detention. The court also found that due process did not require the immigration court to provide him with another bond hearing.
The full text of Vasquez Castaneda v. Garland can be found here:
The Seventh Circuit has determined that a reinstatement order is final for judicial review at the completion of withholding only proceedings.
The full text of FJAP v. Garland can be found here:
The Fifth Circuit has reversed its prior decision and determined that it has jurisdiction to review the agency’s denial of withholding of removal and protection under the Convention against Torture to a non-citizen subject to a reinstatement order, so long as the petition for review is filed within 30 days of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision. The opinion also contains an excellent analysis of when threats rise to the level of persecution, and how to articulate sufficient nexus in a “mixed motives” analysis.
The full text of Argueta-Hernandez v. Garland can be found here: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/22/22-60307-CV1.pdf
The Ninth Circuit has determined that the 30-day deadline to file a petition for review of a removal order is not jurisdictional. The court has further determined that a petition for review filed within 30 days of the completion of reasonable fear proceedings (rather than the issuance of a reinstatement order) is timely.
The full text of Alonso-Juarez v. Garland can be found here:
https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2023/09/08/15-72821.pdf
The Sixth Circuit has reaffirmed that an individual subject to a reinstated removal order files a timely petition for review if it is filed within 30 days of the agency’s dismissal of his withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture claims.
The full text of Kolov v. Garland can be found here:
https://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/23a0186p-06.pdf
The Seventh Circuit has determined that a petitioner’s appeal of his deferral of removal application in withholding-only proceedings was mooted by his removal from the country, since there was no direct challenge to the underlying removal order before the court, but rather, only an appeal of the denial of deferral of removal. “Garcia Marin is inadmissible by virtue of his unchallenged removal order and his criminal record. So even if we were to find an error in the BIA’s decision reversing the immigration judge, the action that Garcia Marin sought to prevent has already taken place, and there are no possible collateral legal consequences.”
The full text if Garcia Marin v. Garland can be found here:
The Second Circuit has determined that a non-citizen subject to a reinstated removal order can only seek judicial review within 30 days of the reinstatement determination. The non-citizen cannot seek judicial review of any subsequent decision in a withholding-only proceeding.
The full text of Bhaktibhai-Patel v. Garland can be found here:
The Ninth Circuit has determined that a Notice of Referral to Immigration Judge missing the time and date of a first withholding only hearing does not affect the immigration court’s jurisdiction over the withholding only case.
The full text of Tzompantzi-Salazar v. Garland can be found here:
https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2022/02/09/20-71514.pdf
A slightly amended version of the opinion can be found here:
https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2022/04/21/20-71514.pdf
The Third Circuit has determined that a Notice of Referral to Immigration Judge that does not contain the time and date of the first removal hearing is not jurisdictionally defective because the regulations do not require that such information be in the Notice.
The full text of Mejia Romero v. Attorney General can be found here:
