A federal appeals court in Denver ruled on Monday, October 26, that a person who wants to challenge a reinstatement order must file in court within 30 days of the order itself, and that years of waiting in reliance on old practice is no excuse, according to the court's published opinion in Vizguerra-Ramirez v. Blanche, No. 25-9559, reported by Immigration Analytics and Courthouse News Service. The decision dismissed Colorado activist Jeanette Vizguerra-Ramirez's petition, filed about 12 years after the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) reinstated her 2011 removal order.
Source: Immigration Analytics
A reinstatement order is different from an ordinary removal order: a DHS officer revives an earlier removal order, with no immigration judge involved and no appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals. Federal law, 8 U.S.C. 1252(b)(1), gives a person 30 days to ask a federal appeals court to review a removal order. In Riley v. Bondi, decided June 26, 2025, the Supreme Court held that the clock starts with the removal order itself — in these cases, the reinstatement order — not when later protection proceedings end. The Supreme Court also called the deadline a procedural rule, which means a late filing can in principle be excused; the Tenth Circuit's ruling shows how rarely that is likely to happen.
A 2013 order became a 2025 deadline problem
An immigration judge denied Vizguerra-Ramirez cancellation of removal in November 2011 but granted voluntary departure, and she appealed. In September 2012 she left for Mexico to be with her dying mother, which automatically withdrew the appeal. She came back in April 2013, and DHS reinstated the 2011 order on July 24, 2013. ICE nonetheless let her stay under a series of stays of removal; she spent periods in sanctuary in a Denver church in 2017 and 2019, left in 2020 to pursue a U visa for crime victims, and after her arrest in March 2025 sought protection in withholding-only proceedings and filed her petition for review shortly after Riley was decided.
Writing for the court, Judge Carolyn McHugh said that under Riley the petition 'should have been filed within thirty days of July 24, 2013.' The court assumed, without deciding, that the deadline can be excused for good reason, then found none was earned: no binding Tenth Circuit precedent had stopped a filing in 2013, and her belief that she had to wait was among the 'mistaken inferences about what the law requires' that do not meet the test for excusing a late filing. The court never reached her main argument — that leaving under a voluntary departure grant is not departing under an order of removal.
Two judges wrote separately, in opposite directions
Judge Gregory Phillips would have excused the late filing and thrown out the reinstatement order, noting that the government itself had long argued such orders were not ready for court review until withholding-only proceedings ended, that she filed within 30 days of Riley, and that on the merits a voluntary departure order is not a removal order. Judge Allison Eid joined the deadline ruling but wrote that the full court should reconsider whether reinstatement orders can be reviewed at all after Riley — a view that, if adopted by the full court, would be a far larger change than this single dismissal.
What it means across six states
The Tenth Circuit covers Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Utah and Wyoming. The practical effect of the ruling is that an old reinstatement order that was never challenged within 30 days is likely beyond review in those states, however strong the legal argument behind it. For new cases the lesson is plainer: file the court petition within 30 days of the reinstatement order, even while a fear screening or withholding-only case is still running — the two routes answer different questions and are not alternatives. The appeals court filing fee is about $600, though people with little income can ask the court to waive it, and because immigration cases are civil there is no right to a government-appointed lawyer. This report is general information, not legal advice.
What is solid
- The Tenth Circuit's published decision of October 26, 2026 dismissed Vizguerra-Ramirez's petition as filed about 12 years too late
- Under Riley v. Bondi, the 30-day review clock starts with the reinstatement order itself
- Judge McHugh found no basis to excuse the late filing and the court did not reach the voluntary-departure argument
- The ruling is binding in Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Utah and Wyoming
What is only claimed
- Judge Phillips would have excused the filing and vacated the order — the judges disagreed on tolling
- Judge Eid invited the full court to reconsider whether such orders can be reviewed at all, so the law in the circuit may still change
For anyone holding an old reinstatement order in the six Tenth Circuit states, this ruling likely closes the court door. For new orders, the petition must be filed within 30 days — even before protection proceedings finish.