Seventh Circuit Orders BIA to Reconsider Deported Man’s Motion to Reopen

The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals has sent a deportation case back to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) for further review. The court’s decision, made on November 10, 2026, in the case of Robert Panton, requires the BIA to address arguments it had previously left unresolved. This ruling specifically impacts Panton’s individual case, while his U-visa application remains pending with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

The core of the dispute centers on how the BIA handled a missed filing deadline and related requests tied to Panton’s visa efforts. The Seventh Circuit panel found that the board did not adequately engage with these arguments, necessitating a remand.

Board Overlooked Request to Excuse Missed Deadline

A key issue in Panton’s case was his request for equitable tolling, a legal principle that can excuse a missed deadline under certain circumstances. The BIA had treated Panton’s filing as more than 90 days late and suggested that reopening the case on its own initiative was the only option. However, Panton had explicitly asked the agency to apply equitable tolling.

The Seventh Circuit panel noted that the BIA “ignored the possibility of equitable tolling, even though Panton had requested that relief explicitly.” The court also stated that the board’s assertion that Panton had not raised an exception to the deadline was incorrect. Panton’s request was linked to a significant delay in receiving certification from New York officials regarding his eligibility for a crime-victim visa. The New York Police Department certified his assistance on December 11, 2023, but this was too late for the information to be presented to the immigration judge. The certification confirmed he was a victim of attempted murder and had assisted the investigation.

The panel indicated that the BIA could have evaluated whether this delay justified tolling. Instead, the court found that the board’s decision did not address the specific request Panton made for relief from the missed deadline.

Confusion Between Waiver and Visa Request

The Seventh Circuit also criticized the BIA for conflating a waiver of inadmissibility with a U visa. The panel pointed out that the board relied on the fact that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) issues U visas. Panton was not asking the immigration judge to issue a U visa directly. Instead, he was seeking a waiver of inadmissibility under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(d)(3)(A), which could enable him to benefit from a visa if his application was successful.

Panton’s drug conviction and removal order made him inadmissible, a separate issue from his eligibility for a U visa. The Seventh Circuit panel suggested that the BIA appeared to treat these two distinct requests as the same.

Furthermore, Panton had asked the BIA to consider the discretionary closure of his removal proceedings while DHS processed his visa application. The board did not address this alternative proposal. The panel determined that the board must consider all arguments presented rather than leaving them unanswered.

The government’s lawyer acknowledged that the BIA had confused the visa and waiver issues and had not fully responded to Panton’s arguments. However, the lawyer contended that these mistakes were harmless. The judges were unconvinced that the errors could be disregarded, especially since the agency had not resolved the legal questions itself. The panel referenced the legal principle from SEC v. Chenery Corp., which states that an agency decision must be judged on the reasons it provided at the time of its action, not on explanations offered later in court. The panel concluded that when an agency’s reasoning is flawed, the usual procedure is to send the case back for reconsideration.

Background of Panton’s Case

Robert Panton, originally from Jamaica, came to the United States as a lawful permanent resident in 1970 at the age of four. In 1992, he was convicted for his involvement in a large-scale drug conspiracy during the 1980s and received a life sentence. He was granted compassionate release by a district court in 2020.

Immigration officials initiated removal proceedings to Jamaica on the day he was released from prison. An immigration judge denied his claim that he would face harm in Jamaica and ordered him removed. His challenge to this removal order was denied by the appellate court in 2023.

Panton later applied for a U visa, which is available to crime victims who cooperate with law enforcement. His application was still pending with DHS when the Seventh Circuit panel reviewed his case. The pendency of his U-visa application did not prevent the immigration judge from issuing the removal order. After the police certification arrived too late for the immigration judge’s consideration, Panton requested that the BIA reopen his case to consider the new information. The BIA denied this request, leading to his appeal to the federal court.

Remand Requires Board to Resolve Arguments

The Seventh Circuit’s order directs the BIA to address Panton’s arguments regarding tolling, the availability of a waiver, and his request for closure of proceedings. The panel instructed the board to consider these arguments and any response from the agency’s legal counsel. The BIA is not required to revisit its earlier decision to refuse reopening the case on its own initiative, as the court excluded that ruling from its review.

Panton’s lawyer, Graham White, expressed satisfaction with the decision, stating that due process requires the government to listen before acting, especially when seeking to separate individuals from their families and communities. Charles Roth also represented Panton, while Gregory Michael Kelch represented the government. The next steps involve the BIA’s decision on the remanded request and DHS’s action on Panton’s pending U-visa application.

Frequently Asked Questions