10th Circuit: Vizguerra-Ramirez Reinstatement Order Review Dismissed

• The 10th Circuit dismissed Jeanette Vizguerra-Ramirez's petition to review a 13-year-old reinstatement order as untimely.
• U.S. Circuit Judge Carolyn McHugh's opinion stated Vizguerra-Ramirez failed to show "extraordinary circumstances" for equitable tolling.
• Judges were split on whether the court had jurisdiction to review the case, but ultimately agreed on untimeliness.
• Vizguerra-Ramirez's 2011 departure to Mexico for her mother's deathbed led to the reinstatement of her removal order upon her 2013 reentry.
• The court clarified that following *Riley v. Bondi*, her petition should have been filed within 30 days of the July 24, 2013, reinstatement order.

This underscores the strict 30-day deadline for petitions to review reinstatement orders, even when new legal interpretations emerge, and the high bar for equitable tolling immigration 10th Circuit.

Immigrant activist Jeanette Vizguerra-Ramirez recently had her petition for review of a 13-year-old reinstatement order dismissed by the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals. The court determined her petition was untimely, despite a notable split among the judges regarding the court's jurisdiction to even consider the case. This decision is the latest development in a protracted immigration saga that began more than a decade ago.

Vizguerra-Ramirez first encountered removal proceedings in 2009 after presenting fraudulent documents during a traffic stop. In 2011, an immigration judge denied her application to cancel the removal order but granted her request for voluntary departure. She subsequently filed an appeal, which included a stay of the removal order. Approximately nine months into this appeal process, Vizguerra-Ramirez traveled to Mexico to be with her mother on her deathbed. Upon her reentry to the U.S. in April 2013, she was charged with misdemeanor illegal entry, and her original 2011 removal order was reinstated. The federal government contends that her departure to Mexico in 2011 nullified both her appeal and the stay, retroactively making her 2013 reentry a felony and precluding review of the 2011 order. Conversely, Vizguerra-Ramirez believed her 2011 departure fulfilled the voluntary departure requirement. She has since been granted multiple stays on the removal order, and her pursuit of legal avenues to challenge the reinstatement included a nine-month detention in 2025, from which she was released on bond in December 2025, with her underlying challenges remaining pending.

The 10th Circuit's ruling on the Jeanette Vizguerra-Ramirez petition for review highlighted a significant split among the judges on two critical issues: whether the court possessed jurisdiction to review the reinstated removal orders and whether her petition was filed too late. U.S. Circuit Judge Carolyn McHugh authored the 21-page opinion, concluding that Vizguerra-Ramirez failed to demonstrate "extraordinary circumstances" necessary for equitable tolling, thus rendering the petition untimely. Consequently, the court did not address the merits of her underlying case.

The jurisdictional question saw Judges McHugh and Gregory Phillips agree, in a 2-1 vote, that the court did have the authority to review the reinstated orders. However, on the issue of timeliness, Judges McHugh and Allison Eid concurred that the petition should be dismissed because Vizguerra-Ramirez did not adequately explain the multi-year delay in bringing her case to the 10th Circuit. This complex alignment of votes underscored the legal intricacies involved. The federal government had argued that the court lacked jurisdiction and that the petition for review should have been filed 13 years prior, when the original orders were issued.

A key aspect of the 10th Circuit Vizguerra-Ramirez reinstatement order review involved the evolution of legal precedent regarding the finality of removal orders. Previously, under the 10th Circuit's 2015 decision in *Luna-Garcia v. Holder*, individuals in situations similar to Vizguerra-Ramirez were deemed not to have a final reviewable order. This meant that, at that time, her petition would have been considered premature.

However, the legal landscape shifted significantly last year with the Supreme Court's ruling in *Riley v. Bondi*. This landmark decision clarified that certain removal orders do indeed meet the criteria for a final order, thereby opening them up to appellate court review. This development prompted Vizguerra-Ramirez to file her petition, asserting its timeliness in light of the new precedent. Despite this, Judge McHugh's opinion explicitly stated that while *Luna-Garcia* would have made the petition premature, following *Riley*, the petition should have been filed within 30 days of July 24, 2013—the date of her reinstatement order. This underscores the strict 30-day deadline for petitions to review reinstatement orders, even when new legal interpretations emerge, and the high bar for equitable tolling immigration 10th Circuit.

Immigration lawyers must be acutely aware of the strict 30-day filing deadline for petitions to review reinstatement orders, as clarified by *Riley v. Bondi*, and the high bar for demonstrating 'extraordinary circumstances' for equitable tolling, even in cases with complex jurisdictional splits. This ruling underscores the critical importance of timely action following a reinstatement order to preserve a client's appellate rights.

Source: Original reporting via Associated Press and Courthouse News Service.