In a move that significantly tightens the legal pathway for immigrants seeking protection from violence abroad, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has handed a major jurisdictional win to Attorney General Pam Bondi.
The court dismissed a petition on Monday, ruling that federal judges lack the power to hear torture-related appeals unless the underlying deportation order is also being challenged.
The decision, authored by Circuit Judge Bridget S. Bade, centered on Jose Guadalupe Navarrete Pelagio, a Mexican citizen fighting to remain in the U.S. under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Navarrete argued he faced a reasonable fear of being tortured if sent back to Mexico, but his legal strategy hit a wall that the court says it cannot climb.
The core of the dispute rests on a technical but high-stakes interpretation of federal law.
Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, appellate courts are authorized to review “final orders of removal.” However, recent Supreme Court precedents—including the 2025 decision in Riley v. Bondi—clarified that a denial of torture protection is legally distinct from the deportation order itself.
READ: Judge Tosses Out Multi-Million Dollar, Wrongful Imprisonment Suit Against AG Pam Bondi
Because Navarrete only challenged the denial of his torture claim and did not contest the validity of his 2024 reinstated removal order, the three-judge panel determined it had no “independent basis” to hear the case.
“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 ruling highlights a growing gap in immigration appeals. During oral arguments, Navarrete’s legal team asked for permission to amend the petition to include a “nominal” challenge to the deportation order—essentially a legal placeholder to allow the torture claim to proceed.
The court rejected this request after Navarrete’s counsel candidly admitted that any challenge to the actual removal order would be “frivolous” and a “red herring.” The court noted that it cannot accept “baseless” claims simply to create a backdoor for other issues.
While the court acknowledged that many petitioners have historically relied on the practice of filing these standalone claims, it refused to make the ruling prospective only. Citing long-standing legal principles, the panel noted that “a jurisdictional ruling may never be made prospective only.”
“Concerns of equity must give way before the ‘rigorous rules’ of statutory jurisdiction,” the opinion stated, effectively ending Navarrete’s current legal bid for protection.
The decision reinforces a strict “all or nothing” requirement for immigrants in the Ninth Circuit: to have a torture claim heard in federal court, they must find a way to legally dispute the underlying order that sends them home in the first place.
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
