Acosta-Tapia: Later Fear Review Did Not Restart the Removal-Order Deadline

The deadline ran from the reinstated removal order, not the later immigration judge’s fear-review decision. In Acosta-Tapia v. Bondi, No. 25-2460 (9th Cir. Jan. 15, 2026), the Ninth Circuit enforced the 30-day petition period after the government invoked it. Filing on the day of the later IJ decision did not make the petition timely.

The nonprecedential memorandum also addressed the reasonable-fear findings in the alternative and kept an existing removal stay in place until the mandate. Those parts of the disposition should not be confused with a merits victory or a ruling that the deadline was jurisdictional.

The reinstatement and fear-review dates were years apart

Acosta-Tapia’s removal order was reinstated November 18, 2022. An IJ affirmed a negative reasonable-fear determination April 16, 2025, and he filed his petition that day. The court identified the reinstated order as the qualifying final removal order under Riley v. Bondi, 606 U.S. 259 (2025). It therefore measured the statutory period from the 2022 order. Memorandum, page 2.

That chronology is the case’s practical distinction from a general description of Riley. A later protection proceeding can produce an important new agency decision without replacing the earlier order that determined removability and directed removal.

Nonjurisdictional did not mean optional

The panel recognized Riley’s holding that section 1252(b)(1) is a mandatory claims-processing rule rather than a jurisdictional restriction. Here, unlike a case in which the government fails to press the deadline, the government invoked it. The panel enforced the rule and dismissed the petition as untimely. Pages 2–3.

The distinction changes how the objection operates; it does not give a petitioner permission to wait for the end of fear proceedings. Identifying the operative order and protecting the applicable filing period remain urgent tasks.

Tolling and retroactivity were not decided on their merits

The court did not consider equitable tolling because it was not specifically and distinctly argued. It also declined to consider the argument against retroactive application of Riley because Acosta-Tapia supplied no supporting legal authority. Page 3.

Those are actual briefing limits, not rulings that every tolling or retroactivity argument necessarily fails. The reasons matter: An omitted argument and an argument rejected after full substantive analysis are different outcomes. Any proposed exception in another case needs its own facts, authority and timely presentation.

The alternative analysis found separate fear-record deficiencies

The panel explained that even a timely petition would fail under substantial-evidence review. On withholding, the record did not compel a finding that the feared harm was on account of family membership or landowner status. The court applied authorities distinguishing a protected-ground connection from criminal harassment motivated by theft or random violence. Pages 3–4.

It separately upheld the finding that Acosta-Tapia had not established the required inability or unwillingness of the government to control the feared persecutors. General violence did not compel the contrary conclusion on this record.

For CAT, the relevant question included the likelihood of torture and the required official involvement, consent or acquiescence. The record did not compel a finding that Mexican officials were aware of or had acquiesced in a plan to torture him. That analysis was distinct from the protected-ground inquiry for withholding. Pages 4–5.

The court’s merits discussion was expressly alternative. The operative disposition remained dismissal for untimeliness, not a timely petition denied solely on the fear evidence.

The stay continued only to the specified procedural event

Footnote 2 stated that the stay of removal remained in place until the mandate issued and otherwise denied the stay motion. Page 5. That temporary direction did not undo the dismissal or establish entitlement to protection.

The January opinion alone does not show whether a stay remains operative today. Later docket entries and orders must be checked. Our post-decision stay guide explains the separate task of reading the decision, stay and mandate records together.

Review the order chain before choosing the filing strategy

Collect the reinstatement notice, fear determination, IJ review decision, filing confirmations and stay orders. Identify what each decision determined and which order the petition challenges. Do not assume a later protection ruling restarts the deadline associated with the underlying removal order.

Bring any potential tolling facts and the briefing already filed for immediate review. Our petition-for-review guide addresses the broader record and filing preparation. This memorandum’s concrete lesson is the cost of choosing the later agency date without resolving the legal effect of the earlier order.