Case Explained: JAIME DANIEL NAVARRO CERRITOS v. TODD BLANCHE, Attorney General ————————————— NATIONAL IMMIGRATION LITIGATION ALLIANCE Amicus Supporting

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Filed: 2026-08-11 The Fourth Circuit granted the petition for review, denied the Government’s motion to dismiss, and reversed in part and vacated in part the Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision, remanding the case for further proceedings. The court held that reinstatement orders constitute “final orders of removal” under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1), thereby establishing jurisdiction to review withholding-only claims even when the petitioner does not expressly challenge removability on the merits. Furthermore, the court determined that the 30-day filing deadline in 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1) is a non-jurisdictional claims-processing rule subject to equitable tolling. Applying this standard, the court found that an extraordinary circumstance existed because the Supreme Court’s decision in *Riley v. Bondi* altered the state of play regarding when a petition must be filed, and the petitioner diligently pursued his rights by filing within 30 days of the Board’s final decision as understood at the time. On the merits, the court found the IJ and Board abused their discretion by failing to meaningfully engage with evidence that Navarro’s anti-gang activities constituted an imputed political opinion, ignored evidence that his proposed particular social group (“Individuals in El Salvador Who Witness and Report Crimes by MS-13 to the Police”) possessed social distinction and particularity, and disregarded substantial evidence supporting his claim for protection under the Convention Against Torture. The court vacated the denial of withholding of removal and CAT relief and remanded for the agency to reconsider these claims consistent with the opinion’s legal standards. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.