Old Deportation Order
Third Circuit keeps legal path open for immigrants facing removal
The ruling keeps a court-review route open for immigrants who say they could face persecution or torture if sent back, even after the government revives an old deportation order.
The Third Circuit said it can hear challenges to withholding-of-removal and CAT denials after a reinstated removal order. For people facing removal again, that preserves a last legal path to argue they should not be sent back to danger.
- The Third Circuit said it can review withholding and CAT denials after a reinstated removal order.
- Patria Laureano had already been found removable after illegally reentering the United States.
- CAT stands for Convention Against Torture.
- The ruling keeps a key protection pathway open for people who fear persecution or torture.
- For immigrants who say they would face persecution or torture if sent back, the fight did not end when an old deportation order was brought back to life
For immigrants who say they would face persecution or torture if sent back, the fight did not end when an old deportation order was brought back to life. The Third Circuit said it could still review denials of withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture, or CAT, even after a 2023 reinstatement order said Patria Laureano was removable after illegally reentering the United States.
The panel said the ruling that denied withholding and CAT relief was not itself the final order of removal. That mattered because federal courts can review the final order, and here the court said it had to look elsewhere for jurisdiction. In Laureano’s case, the answer was yes: the protection claims were reviewable.
The last legal backstop
Withholding of removal is different from asylum, but for some people it can be the only protection left. If granted, it blocks deportation to a country where a person is likely to face persecution. CAT relief goes even further in a different direction, barring return where torture is likely.
The court’s ruling does not turn a reinstated removal order into a free pass. It says only that the order denying protection is reviewable on its own. For people in this posture, that distinction can be the difference between a hearing in federal court and no judicial review at all.
A narrow rule with real stakes
The opinion, filed May 29, 2026, is precedential. Its practical message is plain: a reinstatement order finding illegal reentry does not automatically shut the courthouse door on later denials of withholding or CAT protection.
That keeps a small but important corner of immigration law open for people with prior deportation orders who are still fighting removal. For them, the issue is not paperwork. It is whether a court can still hear the claim that coming back home would put them in grave danger.