M. C. C.-G. v Todd W. Blanche, 25-2268

Background

Petitioners E.E.V. and M.C.C.-G. seek review of DHS removal orders while their withholding-only and CAT-related proceedings remain pending. 1
E.E.V. is subject to a reinstated removal order after reentering the United States; M.C.C.-G. is subject to a final administrative removal order after an aggravated-felony conviction. 2
Before Riley, circuit precedent required petitions for review in withholding-only cases to be filed after agency proceedings ended; Riley held the 30-day review deadline runs from the final removal order itself. 3
The government moved to dismiss as untimely and also argued that reinstatement orders are not reviewable final orders and that the petitions were unripe. 4
The majority rejected the jurisdictional attacks, held reinstatement orders are final orders of removal, and found equitable tolling available and warranted here. 5
The dissent argued a reinstatement order is not a final order of removal and that Riley makes the 30-day deadline mandatory and not tollable. 6

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is a reinstatement order a reviewable final order of removal? 7	E.E.V. said the reinstatement order itself is reviewable under § 1252.	The government said reinstatement merely revives the old order and is not final.	Yes; reinstatement orders are final orders of removal subject to review. 8
Are these petitions unripe because withholding-only proceedings are pending? 9	Petitioners argued Riley permits placeholder petitions held pending agency completion.	The government argued nothing is fit for review until withholding-only proceedings end.	No; Riley itself contemplated petitions filed before withholding-only proceedings conclude. 10
Does § 1252(b)(1)'s 30-day deadline permit equitable tolling? 11	Petitioners argued the nonjurisdictional deadline is tollable.	The government argued Riley makes the deadline mandatory and untollable.	Yes; the deadline is subject to equitable tolling. 12
Do petitioners qualify for equitable tolling? 13	They diligently followed then-binding precedent and filed promptly after Riley.	The government argued they should have filed earlier or challenged precedent.	Yes; reliance on binding precedent plus Riley's change was an extraordinary circumstance. 14
Should E.E.V.'s petition be transferred for improper venue? 15	E.E.V. filed where her withholding-only proceedings were pending.	The government sought transfer to the Fifth Circuit because the reinstatement order issued in Texas.	No; transfer was not in the interests of justice. 16

Key Cases Cited

Riley v. Bondi, 606 U.S. 259 (U.S. 2025) (held the 30-day petition-for-review deadline runs from the final removal order and is nonjurisdictional 17)
F.J.A.P. v. Garland, 94 F.4th 620 (7th Cir. 2024) (pre-Riley circuit precedent on timing and review of withholding-only and reinstatement cases 18)
Nasrallah v. Barr, 590 U.S. 573 (U.S. 2020) (CAT orders do not themselves constitute final orders of removal 19)
Johnson v. Guzman Chavez, 594 U.S. 523 (U.S. 2021) (discussed detention and withholding-only proceedings after reinstatement 20)
Boechler, P.C. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 596 U.S. 199 (U.S. 2022) (recognized the presumption favoring equitable tolling for nonjurisdictional deadlines 21)
Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631 (U.S. 2010) (applied equitable tolling to habeas limitations periods and emphasized equitable principles 22)
Enbridge Energy, LP v. Nessel, 146 S. Ct. 1074 (U.S. 2026) (explained when statutory text and exceptions rebut the presumption of equitable tolling 23)