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

The Seventh Circuit sent Robert Panton’s motion to reopen his removal case back to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) on November 10, 2026. The panel ordered the board to address arguments it had left unresolved.

The ruling concerns Panton’s individual case. His U-visa application remains pending with the Department of Homeland Security as the board reconsiders his request.

The case, Robert Savio Panton v. Todd W. Blanche, No. 25-2528, came before a panel of U.S. Circuit Judges Frank H. Easterbrook, Michael Y. Scudder and John Z. Lee. The judges granted Panton’s petition for review and returned the matter to the board.

The dispute turns on how the board handled a missed filing deadline and requests tied to Panton’s visa effort. The panel said the agency must engage with those arguments.

The board overlooked Panton’s request to excuse the missed deadline

The board treated Panton’s filing as more than 90 days late and said reopening on its own initiative was the only available route. But Panton had expressly asked the agency to apply equitable tolling, which can excuse a missed deadline in appropriate circumstances.

“The board ignored the possibility of equitable tolling, even though Panton had requested that relief explicitly,” the panel wrote. It also said the board’s claim that Panton had not raised an exception to the deadline was false.

Panton tied his request to a lengthy wait for New York officials to certify information supporting his crime-victim visa eligibility. The New York Police Department certified his assistance on December 11, 2023, too late for the information to be presented to the immigration judge. The certification said he had been targeted in an attempted murder, assisted the investigation and had positive equities.

The board could have assessed whether the delay justified tolling. Instead, the panel said, its decision did not address the request Panton actually made.

The board treated a waiver and a visa as the same request

The panel also faulted the board for relying on the fact that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services issues U visas. Panton was not asking the immigration judge to issue one. He sought a waiver of inadmissibility under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(d)(3)(A), which could allow him to benefit from a visa if his application succeeds.

His drug conviction and removal order made him inadmissible. That made the waiver question separate from whether he qualified for a U visa. The panel said the board appeared to treat the two requests as interchangeable.

Panton also asked the board to consider discretionary closure of his removal proceedings while DHS acted on his visa application. The board did not address that proposed alternative. The panel said it must consider the arguments rather than leave them unanswered.

The government’s lawyer acknowledged that the board had confused the visa and waiver issues and had not fully responded to Panton’s arguments, but contended the mistakes were harmless. The judges were not persuaded that they could disregard the errors while the agency had not resolved the legal questions itself.

The panel relied on the principle in SEC v. Chenery Corp. that an agency decision must be assessed on the reasons the agency gave when it acted, rather than explanations supplied later in court. “When an agency's rationale is deficient, and counsel advances new arguments, the normal course is a remand so that the agency can reconsider,” the panel wrote.

Panton’s visa application followed his removal order

Panton was born in Jamaica and came to the United States as a lawful permanent resident in 1970, when he was 4 years old. He was convicted in 1992 for his role in a large-scale drug conspiracy during the 1980s and received a life sentence.

A district court granted him compassionate release in 2020. Immigration officials began removal proceedings to Jamaica the day he left prison. An immigration judge rejected his claim that he would face harm there and ordered him removed. The appellate court denied his challenge to that removal order in 2023.

Panton later applied for a U visa, a classification for crime victims who assist law enforcement. His application was still awaiting a DHS decision when the panel considered the case. Its pendency did not prevent the immigration judge from issuing the removal order.

After the police certification arrived too late for the immigration judge to consider, Panton asked the board to reopen his case and consider the new information. The board denied that request, prompting his court challenge.

The board must resolve the arguments on remand

The order sends the request back for the board to address Panton’s tolling argument, the availability of a waiver and his alternative request for closure. The panel directed the board to address his arguments and any response from the agency’s lawyer.

The board does not have to revisit its earlier discretionary refusal to reopen the case on its own initiative. The court left that ruling outside the scope of its review.

Panton’s lawyer Graham White welcomed the decision. “Due process requires the government to listen before it acts, particularly when it seeks to separate a person from his family and community,” he said. Charles Roth also represented Panton; Gregory Michael Kelch represented the government.

The next developments are the board’s decision on the remanded request and DHS action on Panton’s pending visa application. This article provides general information and is not legal advice. Consult a qualified immigration attorney about your specific case.