The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has dismissed the immigration petition of Jose Guadalupe Navarrete Pelagio, ruling that it lacked jurisdiction to review his claim regarding a negative reasonable-fear determination under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). This decision affects individuals seeking protection from deportation based on fears of torture in their home countries.

The court's ruling emphasizes the limitations of judicial review concerning immigration matters, specifically noting that a standalone claim for CAT relief does not invoke the court's jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1). This ruling could impact future cases where individuals seek to challenge negative reasonable-fear determinations without also contesting their final orders of removal.

Background

Jose Guadalupe Navarrete, a native and citizen of Mexico, initially entered the United States illegally in 2003. After attempting to enter the U.S. with a fraudulent resident alien card, he was served with an expedited order of removal. Following his removal, Navarrete illegally re-entered the U.S. in 2008. In January 2024, he was reported to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) by his employer for suspected use of false identification. Consequently, DHS reinstated his prior order of removal.

During reinstatement proceedings, Navarrete expressed a fear of returning to Mexico, prompting a reasonable-fear interview with an asylum officer. The officer concluded that Navarrete did not establish a reasonable fear of torture or persecution upon his return to Mexico. Navarrete subsequently sought a review of this determination from an immigration judge, who upheld the asylum officer's findings.

The Ruling

The Ninth Circuit ruled on November 6, 2026, stating that it lacked jurisdiction to hear Navarrete's petition, which only challenged the negative reasonable-fear determination and did not contest the final order of removal. The court explained, "a petition for review advancing a standalone claim for review of a CAT order is not sufficient to invoke the court’s jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1)." The ruling was made by a panel of judges including Michael Daly Hawkins, Richard R. Clifton, and Bridget S. Bade.

The court clarified that while Congress has granted federal courts jurisdiction to review final orders of removal, an order affirming a negative reasonable-fear determination does not qualify as a final order of removal. The court referenced several Supreme Court decisions, including Nasrallah v. Barr and Riley v. Bondi, to support its conclusion that CAT claims must be considered as part of the review of a final order of removal.

Impact

This ruling has significant implications for individuals seeking to challenge negative reasonable-fear determinations. It underscores the importance of contesting final orders of removal when seeking judicial review of CAT claims. The decision may limit the ability of individuals in similar situations to obtain judicial relief if they do not also challenge their underlying removal orders.

Furthermore, the ruling establishes a clear precedent that a standalone CAT claim does not provide grounds for jurisdiction in the Ninth Circuit. This could deter future petitions that do not meet the jurisdictional requirements set forth by the court.

What's Next

Navarrete's case cannot be appealed further in its current form, as the Ninth Circuit has dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction. Details were not available in the court filing regarding any related cases that may be pending.