A divided Tenth Circuit has dismissed as untimely a petition for review of a reinstated removal order, while holding that Riley v. Bondi did not strip it of jurisdiction to review such orders. The majority reasoned that a reinstatement order meets the plain-text definition of an "order of removal" in 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(47)(A), so Riley did not clearly overrule circuit precedent, and that only a clearly contrary Supreme Court decision can change circuit precedent. The government had moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and as untimely.
On timeliness, the court held that after Riley the 30-day deadline in 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1) is a nonjurisdictional claims-processing rule, left open whether it is subject to equitable tolling, and assumed tolling is available but found no extraordinary circumstance. At time of the petitioner’s reinstatement order in 2013, no binding authority barred immediate filing, and a mistaken belief about the law is not beyond a litigant's control.
The full text of Vizguerra-Ramirez v. Blanche can be found here: https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/sites/ca10/files/opinions/010111533104.pdf