The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a ruling today dismissing a petition for review in Navarrete v. Bondi, Case No. 24-2776. The court determined it lacks the legal authority to hear appeals that only challenge the denial of protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) without also challenging a formal final order of removal.
The case involves Jose Guadalupe Navarrete Pelagio, a Mexican citizen who was removed from the U.S. in 2003 and later re-entered illegally. In early 2024, immigration authorities reinstated his original removal order. During those proceedings, an immigration judge agreed with an asylum officer’s finding that Navarrete did not have a “reasonable fear” of torture if sent back to Mexico.
Navarrete appealed that specific decision to the Ninth Circuit. However, he did not challenge the underlying legal validity of his actual removal order.
The Jurisdictional Conflict
READ: Hormuz Deadline Extension Fails To Halt Democratic Surge In New Polling
Writing for the panel, Judge Bridget S. Bade explained that federal law grants appeals courts the power to review “final orders of removal.” Recent Supreme Court precedents, including Nasrallah v. Barr and Riley v. Bondi, have clarified that a CAT protection order is distinct from a removal order. Because a CAT ruling does not affect whether a person is legally “removable,” it does not “merge” into the final removal order.
“Our jurisdiction is statutorily limited to final orders of removal,” Judge Bade wrote. “We do not have jurisdiction to hear Navarrete’s petition that challenges only an order denying CAT relief.”
The court noted that while CAT claims can be heard alongside a challenge to a removal order, they cannot stand alone as the sole basis for an appeal. The panel characterized the court’s ability to hear CAT claims as a form of “pendent jurisdiction” that requires an independent legal hook—specifically, a valid challenge to the removal order itself—to proceed.
Arguments for Exception Rejected
Attorneys for Navarrete and amicus groups argued that the court should exercise jurisdiction based on the Supreme Court’s 2025 decision in Monsalvo v. Bondi, which dealt with voluntary departure. The panel disagreed, noting that voluntary departure directly affects the timing and legality of the executive branch’s authority to remove someone, whereas a CAT order only limits where a person can be sent.
The court also shot down a request to allow Navarrete to amend his petition to include a “nominal” challenge to his removal order. Navarrete’s counsel admitted during oral arguments that such a challenge would be “frivolous” and a “red herring” since there were no actual legal errors in the reinstatement of his 2003 removal. The court ruled that it cannot accept a meritless claim just to create a loophole for jurisdiction.
Finally, the court rejected the plea to make this ruling prospective only. Citing established law, the panel noted that “a jurisdictional ruling may never be made prospective only,” regardless of how much a petitioner relied on previous legal practices.
The decision effectively closes a door for immigrants in the Ninth Circuit seeking to appeal only the denial of torture-related relief in reinstatement proceedings, unless they can also find a colorable legal flaw in their underlying deportation orders.
Please make a small donation to the Tampa Free Press to help sustain independent journalism. Your contribution enables us to continue delivering high-quality, local, and national news coverage.
Sign up: Subscribe to our free newsletter for a curated selection of top stories delivered straight to your inbox
