The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on July 6, 2026, that noncitizens can appeal removal orders even if their requests for withholding of removal or relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) are still pending. This decision affects many individuals facing deportation who fear persecution or torture if returned to their home countries.
The case involved two petitioners, E.E.V. from El Salvador and M.C.C.-G. from Mexico, who sought judicial review of their removal orders. The court's ruling is significant because it clarifies the timeline for filing appeals and reinforces the rights of noncitizens to seek protection from deportation.
Background
E.E.V. and M.C.C.-G. are among a group of noncitizens who have been ordered removed from the United States. They fear returning to their home countries due to threats of persecution and torture. The case reached the Seventh Circuit after the federal government moved to dismiss their petitions for judicial review, arguing that they were filed too late.
Before the Supreme Court's decision in Riley v. Bondi, noncitizens had to wait until all administrative proceedings concluded before filing appeals. However, the Supreme Court ruled that the thirty-day deadline to seek judicial review starts from the date of the final administrative removal order, even if other relief requests are pending. This change prompted E.E.V. and M.C.C.-G. to file their petitions shortly after the Riley decision.
The Ruling
The Seventh Circuit, led by Judge Hamilton, ruled that the government’s motions to dismiss the petitions were denied. The court stated, "We reject the government’s attempts to limit such judicial review, both as applied to these petitioners and more broadly." This ruling allows the petitioners to continue their appeals despite the government's claims that they were untimely.
The court emphasized that the petitioners are entitled to equitable tolling of the thirty-day deadline, meaning they can still file their appeals even if the usual timeline has passed. This decision is crucial for noncitizens who may fear returning to their home countries due to threats against their safety.
Impact
This ruling has far-reaching implications for noncitizens facing removal. It establishes that individuals can seek judicial review of their removal orders while their requests for withholding of removal or CAT relief are still pending. This decision reinforces the rights of noncitizens to challenge their removal in court, especially when they face potential persecution or torture.
The court's ruling also sets a precedent for future cases involving similar issues. It clarifies the timeline for appeals and ensures that noncitizens are not unfairly barred from seeking protection due to administrative delays. This decision could impact thousands of individuals navigating the complex immigration system.
What's Next
The government may still appeal this ruling, but it is unclear if there are related cases pending in other circuits. The Seventh Circuit's decision could influence how similar cases are handled in the future, potentially shaping immigration policy regarding noncitizen removal and judicial review.