Navarro Cerritos saves a petition that Riley made late, then reverses the Board on the social group question.
.svg)
The decision. In Jaime Navarro Cerritos v. Todd Blanche, No. 23-1897 (4th Cir. Aug. 11, 2026), the Fourth Circuit held that a reinstated removal order is a final order of removal, and that a petition for review need not contest removability on the merits to be heard. The court then held that the 30-day deadline in 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1) can be equitably tolled, and tolled it here: Riley v. Bondi, 606 U.S. 259 (2025), changed the filing rule while this case was pending, and the petitioner had filed within 30 days of the Board's decision, exactly as the Board's own notice instructed. On the merits, the court reversed the ruling that the group "Individuals in El Salvador Who Witness and Report Crimes by MS-13 to the Police" lacks particularity, and vacated the rulings on social distinction, political opinion, and protection under the Convention Against Torture.
What it means. The opinion is a catalog of record-building errors. The Immigration Court and the Board passed over unrebutted affidavits and expert testimony, treated a personal dispute as canceling out an anti-gang motive rather than intertwined with it, read the proposed group word by word instead of whole, and reasoned that because the petitioner's family remained alive, the danger was speculative. The court rejected that last step outright: if relief required the murder of an applicant's family, few applicants could ever prove a case.
For the Fourth Circuit. This controls cases from the immigration courts in Maryland, North Carolina, and Virginia. Two practical points. File the petition within 30 days of the reinstatement order, and say plainly that the petition challenges that order; tolling is a remedy for the rare case, not a filing plan. And put the expert declarations, country conditions, and family affidavits into the record early, because the appeal is built at the Immigration Court and before the Board or it is not built at all.
The limits. This is a remand, not relief. The court left open whether Navarro is an actual or imputed member of the group, and left the remaining questions to be decided again below. The circuits are split: the Ninth and Eleventh require an express challenge to removability, and Judge Wilkinson dissented on tolling. The Supreme Court has not resolved either question.
Case Law Watch is Emeriti Law's weekly note on decisions that matter for immigration appeals. Our appellate practice briefs these questions before the Board of Immigration Appeals. This note is general information, not legal advice.
.png)
