7th Circuit Sends Panton Deportation Case Back to BIA

What if the 90-day deadline to reopen your immigration case has already passed — does that mean you have no options left? Not necessarily. In November 2026, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) made serious legal errors when it refused to reopen the removal case of Robert Savio Panton, a lawful permanent resident who came to the US from Jamaica at age four in 1970.

What the court found

Panton was convicted in 1992 for a large-scale drug conspiracy and sentenced to life in prison. He was released in 2020 through compassionate release — a legal process that allows courts to reduce a sentence for extraordinary reasons — and immigration officials immediately began removal proceedings. He argued he qualified for a U visa, which is available to crime victims who help law enforcement. The New York Police Department certified in December 2023 that Panton had been the target of an attempted murder and had cooperated with investigators. But that certification came too late to be presented to the immigration judge during his original hearing.

Panton asked the BIA to reopen his case so the new evidence could be considered. The BIA refused. The Seventh Circuit found two clear errors in that refusal. First, the BIA said Panton had not even claimed an exception to the 90-day reopening deadline — but that was false. He had explicitly asked for equitable tolling, a legal doctrine that can extend deadlines when delays were caused by circumstances outside a person's control. Second, the BIA confused a U visa (issued by USCIS) with a waiver of inadmissibility (which can be granted by an immigration judge). These are two different things. Even the government's own lawyer in court admitted the BIA was wrong. The court sent the case back to the BIA with instructions to actually address Panton's arguments.

The case also touches on a broader unresolved legal question: whether the Department of Justice — through immigration judges — can grant waivers of inadmissibility to people who were lawfully admitted to the US but later became inadmissible. The Seventh Circuit did not decide that question. The Supreme Court is separately considering a related issue in Roney v. Barbosa da Cunha, No. 26–104, after granting certiorari on October 1, 2026. That decision could affect how courts treat inadmissible people who are already inside the US.

What to do

• If you missed the 90-day deadline to file a motion to reopen your immigration case, do not assume it is too late. Lawyers can argue for equitable tolling if the delay was caused by factors outside your control — such as waiting years for a government agency to respond.
• If you have a pending U visa application and a removal order, ask an immigration attorney whether you can separately request a waiver of inadmissibility from an immigration judge. These are different forms of relief, and the BIA's confusion in this case shows why the distinction matters.
• If you are in removal proceedings and have new evidence — such as a law enforcement certification — gather it as quickly as possible and bring it to your attorney before your hearing date, not after.
• Follow the Supreme Court's decision in Roney v. Barbosa da Cunha, which may clarify when people inside the US can seek certain waivers from the Department of Justice.

What to do, step by step — see our guide “Appealing to the BIA”.