The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on July 6, 2026, in a significant case involving the rights of noncitizens facing removal from the United States. The court addressed petitions for review filed by two individuals, E.E.V. and M.C.C.-G., who fear persecution and torture if returned to their home countries. This ruling is important as it clarifies the judicial review process for noncitizens seeking withholding of removal or relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).
The court's decision impacts many noncitizens who are currently navigating the complex immigration system. It underscores the legal protections available to those who claim they would face harm if removed from the U.S. The ruling also addresses the timing of petitions for judicial review, which could affect how noncitizens pursue their cases in the future.
Background
The parties involved in this case are E.E.V., a citizen of El Salvador, and M.C.C.-G., a citizen of Mexico. Both individuals are among a larger group of noncitizens who are challenging their removal orders due to fears of persecution and torture in their home countries. The case reached the Seventh Circuit after the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issued removal orders against them, prompting them to seek judicial review.
The case gained significance following the Supreme Court's decision in Riley v. Bondi, which changed the landscape for noncitizens seeking judicial review of removal orders. Prior to Riley, noncitizens were required to wait for all administrative proceedings to conclude before filing petitions for review. However, the Supreme Court ruled that the thirty-day deadline for seeking judicial review begins when a final administrative removal order is issued, even if other proceedings are still pending.
The Ruling
The Seventh Circuit Court, led by Judge Hamilton, ruled against the government's motion to dismiss the petitions filed by E.E.V. and M.C.C.-G. The court found that both individuals were entitled to equitable tolling of the thirty-day deadline for filing their petitions for review. 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 E.E.V. and M.C.C.-G. to proceed with their petitions despite the government's claims that they were filed too late.
In its decision, the court emphasized the importance of judicial review for noncitizens facing removal, stating that federal law prohibits removing a noncitizen to a country where they would face persecution or torture. The court's ruling reinforces the rights of noncitizens to seek protection from removal under these circumstances.
Impact
This ruling has significant implications for noncitizens across the United States. It clarifies that the thirty-day deadline for filing petitions for judicial review is not a strict jurisdictional barrier, allowing for equitable tolling in cases where noncitizens may face delays in their administrative proceedings. This decision may encourage more noncitizens to seek judicial review of their removal orders, knowing that they have some leeway in meeting filing deadlines.
The court's decision also reinforces the principle that noncitizens cannot be removed to countries where they would face serious harm. This ruling may set a precedent for future cases involving withholding of removal and CAT relief, ensuring that noncitizens have access to the courts to challenge their removal orders.
What's Next
Following this ruling, it is possible that the government may seek to appeal the decision or challenge it in further proceedings. Additionally, there may be related cases pending that could also address similar issues regarding the rights of noncitizens and the judicial review process.