Patria Laureano v. Attorney General United States of America
Split Score
What is a Split Score?
This score (0-100) indicates how likely this case is to be reviewed by the Supreme Court based on:
Case Summary
Disposition
Affirmed
The Third Circuit denied Patria Laureano’s petition for review of the BIA’s denial of her statutory-withholding and CAT applications. The court held (1) it had jurisdiction—despite the petition challenging only the withholding/CAT rulings—because a reinstated removal order qualifies as a final order and the government waived the 30-day filing rule, and (2) the BIA correctly rejected CAT relief; the panel divided on whether the Attorney General’s presumption in Matter of Y-L- properly barred withholding. The petition was therefore denied, leaving the BIA’s decision intact.
Circuit Split Identified
Legal Issue
Whether a court of appeals has jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1) to review a withholding-only/CAT order when the petition does not separately challenge a final order of removal (including a reinstated order).
Circuit Positions
Jurisdiction exists to review withholding-only/CAT orders even without a separate challenge to the final removal order (or where the reinstatement itself is treated as the final order).
No jurisdiction to review standalone withholding-only/CAT orders; a petition must also seek review of the final order of removal.
Conflict Summary
The Third Circuit held that it may entertain petitions challenging only withholding-or-CAT determinations—treating the reinstated removal order (or, alternatively, the CAT order itself together with government waiver of timeliness) as sufficient for § 1252(a)(1) jurisdiction. The Ninth Circuit (Navarrete v. Bondi, 170 F.4th 1214 (9th Cir. 2026)) has held the opposite, concluding that courts lack jurisdiction over standalone CAT/withholding petitions absent a contemporaneous challenge to the underlying final removal order.