Sixth Circuit Denies Petition Raising Fourth Amendment, Notice-to-Appear, and Nexus Challenges

The Sixth Circuit has denied a petition for review filed by a Guatemalan Maya Quiché man who sought suppression of identity evidence obtained during a police stop and withholding of removal and CAT protection based on an intrafamilial land dispute with political undertones.

The Court held that the officer's stop was supported by reasonable suspicion after he personally witnessed a littering violation, defeating any Fourth Amendment suppression claim, and that the absence of Miranda warnings does not render statements inadmissible in civil removal proceedings. The Court also held that the petitioner forfeited his challenge to a noncompliant notice to appear by raising it more than a year after Niz-Chavez was decided and long after the close of proceedings, and that substantial evidence supported the agency's finding that his great uncle's threats were motivated by a personal land dispute rather than any protected ground.

The full text of Perez-Hernandez v. Blanche can be found here: https://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/26a0208p-06.pdf

Seventh Circuit Denies Government's Bid to Dismiss Post-Riley Petitions as Untimely

The Seventh Circuit has denied the government's motions to dismiss petitions for review filed by two noncitizens whose withholding-only proceedings remain pending, rejecting new jurisdictional arguments raised in the wake of the Supreme Court's decision in Riley v. Bondi. One petitioner is a Salvadoran woman whose reinstated removal order has been pending review for nearly a decade; the other is a Mexican woman convicted of theft who is contesting a final administrative removal order.

The Court held that a reinstatement order remains a final order of removal subject to judicial review, reaffirming decades of circuit precedent and rejecting the government's argument that reinstatement orders are unreviewable altogether. The Court also held that the petitions were not filed too early, since Riley itself endorsed the practice of filing placeholder petitions while withholding-only proceedings remain pending. Finally, the Court concluded that the thirty-day filing deadline is subject to equitable tolling and that both petitioners reasonably relied on then-binding circuit precedent in timing their filings, making tolling appropriate here.

The full text of E.E.V. v. Blanche can be found here: https://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/OpinionsWeb/processWebInputExternal.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2026/D07-06/C:25-2268:J:Hamilton:aut:T:op:N:3568944:S:0

BIA Agrees that NTA Missing Time and Place of First Removal Hearing Presents Mandatory Claim-Processing Rule Violation

The Board of Immigration Appeals has determined that a Notice to Appear missing the time and place of the first removal hearing presents a mandatory claim-processing rule violation. If a timely objection is brought (namely, before pleadings are taken), an immigration judge may give the Department of Homeland Security the opportunity to cure the defect before dismissing proceedings. If the objection is not timely raised, it is forfeited. The respondent need not show any prejudice resulting from the claim-processing rule violation.

The BIA declined to define how the DHS would remedy the defect. “The precise contours of permissible remedies are not before us at this time. DHS may decide it is best to request dismissal without prejudice and file a new notice to appear.”

The full text of Matter of Fernandes can be found here:

https://www.justice.gov/eoir/page/file/1524081/download