The Supreme Court held in Riley v. Bondi that the 30-day federal petition deadline for removal orders runs from DHS issuance, not completion of immigration proceedings.
The Supreme Court ruled July 11 that the 30-day window to petition a federal circuit court for review of a removal order begins running the moment the Department of Homeland Security issues a reinstatement or administrative removal order, not after an immigration court completes any pending withholding-of-removal or Convention Against Torture proceedings [1]. The decision in *Riley v. Bondi* resolved a circuit split and overturned the prevailing rule in every federal circuit except the Second and the Fourth [1]. For noncitizens who continue to pursue protection claims in immigration court, the clock on federal judicial review is already running.
The case arose in the context of DHS-issued administrative orders, a category of removal directives that bypass the standard immigration-judge hearing for certain individuals with prior removal orders or limited lawful presence [1]. The Supreme Court's ruling affects the procedural intersection between those DHS orders and the separate withholding-of-removal and CAT proceedings that immigration courts conduct afterward [1]. The practical result is a compressed filing obligation: a noncitizen must petition a circuit court for review of the underlying removal order before the immigration court has issued any final decision on protection claims [1].
The significance of the ruling extends directly to representation gaps. Many individuals subject to reinstatement or administrative removal orders are unrepresented detainees with limited access to counsel and limited awareness of federal appellate procedures [1]. Under the prior majority rule, the 30-day window did not begin until proceedings were complete, giving practitioners a defined endpoint from which to calculate the deadline [1]. The Court's new framework requires counsel, where counsel exists, to file protective petitions at the circuit level immediately upon the DHS order, even without a full record from the immigration court [1]. Missing that window forfeits all federal court review of the removal order [1].
The ruling creates immediate practice obligations across immigration law. Attorneys advising clients in reinstatement or expedited removal proceedings must now treat the DHS administrative order as the triggering event for federal appellate deadlines, regardless of where parallel immigration-court proceedings stand [1]. The Board of Immigration Appeals continues to process withholding and CAT claims, but those outcomes will not revive a forfeited petition-for-review deadline at the circuit level [1]. Advocacy organizations have flagged the decision as likely to generate procedural forfeitures among unrepresented individuals before the new standard is broadly understood [1].
—