No Lawyer at Hearing? Court Dismisses Asylum Petition
A Honduran man told a federal appeals court he feared political persecution and was denied a lawyer at his immigration hearing. The Sixth Circuit ruled in October 2026 that it could not help him — not because his fear was invalid, but because he had never challenged the original order that made him deportable. The case shows how a single procedural gap can shut the courthouse door entirely.
What if you challenge your deportation in federal court — and the court says it cannot even look at your case? That is exactly what happened to Bayron Jose Castro-Fuentes, a Honduran man whose petition the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit dismissed on October 27, 2026. The court did not rule on whether he would face persecution in Honduras. It ruled that it had no legal power to hear his case at all — because he had never challenged his final order of removal.
What happened and why it matters for asylum seekers
Castro-Fuentes first entered the U.S. illegally and applied for asylum, claiming gangs had killed his father in Honduras. An immigration judge denied his case in 2017, and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) — the main appeals body for immigration court decisions — upheld that denial. He did not take the case to federal court at that point. DHS deported him in 2021. He re-entered the U.S. a month later, was caught, and was detained for 23 months. In 2023, DHS reinstated the original 2017 removal order — and Castro-Fuentes signed a form saying he did not want to contest it.
Immigration Deadlines 2026 — Free
Download PDF with all key dates
In 2025, while waiting to be deported again, he had a "reasonable fear" interview — a screening process for people under reinstated removal orders who say they fear returning to their home country. He told the asylum officer he feared political persecution under Honduran President Xiomara Castro. The officer found his fear did not meet the legal standard. An immigration judge agreed. Castro-Fuentes then asked the Sixth Circuit to review that decision. At his immigration judge hearing, his attorney Kevin Gardner was not present, and the judge noted there was no record showing Gardner represented him — a due process concern Castro-Fuentes later raised in court.
The Sixth Circuit, in an opinion written by Circuit Judge Siler, dismissed the petition without reaching any of those arguments. Under federal law (8 U.S.C. § 1252), appeals courts can only review "final orders of removal" — orders that actually conclude a person is deportable. The court explained that rulings on asylum withholding and Convention Against Torture (CAT) protection are separate from a final removal order. They do not cancel the removal order; they only block removal to one specific country while certain conditions exist. Because Castro-Fuentes challenged only the reasonable-fear ruling — not the underlying 2017 removal order — the Sixth Circuit had no jurisdiction, meaning no legal authority, to hear his case.
What to do
- If you have a reinstated removal order and fear returning to your country, request a reasonable-fear interview immediately — but also talk to an immigration lawyer about whether your original removal order can still be challenged in federal court.
- If an immigration judge holds a hearing without your attorney present, object on the record and ask for a continuance (a delay) to get legal representation. Document everything.
- Do not sign any form saying you "do not wish to contest" a removal order without first speaking to an attorney. Signing that form can close off future legal options, as it did in this case.
- If you plan to petition a federal appeals court, make sure your petition challenges the final order of removal — not just a side ruling on withholding or CAT protection. A lawyer can help you identify the right legal target.
A full breakdown of this topic — in our guide “Immigration Court Rulings”.
Fishkin Law Firm, New York
This case is a warning about the difference between challenging a removal order and challenging a side ruling like a reasonable-fear determination. Under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, federal courts only have jurisdiction over final orders of removal — and a negative reasonable-fear ruling is not one of them. If your client is under a reinstated order and did not seek judicial review of the original BIA decision, your window to challenge the removal itself may already be closed, but withholding-only proceedings before an immigration judge remain available. Consult an immigration attorney before any interview or hearing to map out which legal avenues are still open.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is a 'final order of removal' and why does it matter?
A final order of removal is a court or immigration judge's decision that officially concludes you are deportable. Under federal law, U.S. appeals courts can only review these final orders — not side rulings like a reasonable-fear determination or a decision on withholding of removal. If you do not challenge the final order itself, a federal court cannot hear your case, even if something went wrong in a later hearing.
What is a reasonable-fear interview?
A reasonable-fear interview is a screening conducted by an asylum officer for people who are under a reinstated removal order — meaning they were deported before and re-entered the U.S. The officer decides whether there is a reasonable possibility you would face persecution or torture if returned to your country. If the officer says no, an immigration judge can review that decision. But as this case shows, that review is separate from your final removal order.
Can I get a lawyer for a reasonable-fear interview or immigration judge review?
Yes. You have the right to be represented by an attorney at your own expense in immigration proceedings, including reasonable-fear reviews before an immigration judge. If your attorney is not present at a hearing, you should ask the judge to postpone the hearing so you can get representation. If the judge refuses, object clearly and make sure it is noted in the record — that objection may be important if you appeal later.
What happens if I sign a form saying I do not want to contest my removal order?
Signing that form can seriously limit your legal options. In this case, Castro-Fuentes signed a form in 2023 saying he did not want to contest the reinstated removal order. That decision contributed to his inability to challenge the removal order in federal court later. Never sign such a form without first speaking to an immigration lawyer.