Law360 (November 10, 2026, 8:55 PM EST) -- A Seventh Circuit panel has ordered immigration officials to reconsider a Jamaican man's bid to reopen his deportation case.

The panel said in a seven-page opinion filed Tuesday that the Board of Immigration Appeals ignored Jamaican-born Robert Panton's request to excuse a missed deadline and confused his request for a waiver with a pending visa application.

"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 said in the opinion. "We follow that approach here."

Panton came to the United States in 1970 as a lawful permanent resident when he was 4 years old. He was involved in a large-scale drug conspiracy during the 1980s and was convicted and sentenced to life in prison in 1992.

A district court then granted Panton's bid for compassionate release in 2020. But the opinion said immigration officials began the process of removing him to Jamaica the day he left the prison.

Panton argued that he would face harm in his native country, but an immigration judge disagreed and ordered his removal. The Seventh Circuit then denied his petition for review of the removal order in 2023.

Panton applied to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security secretary for a U visa, which is available to victims of crime who assist law enforcement. The panel said his application, which remains pending, didn't prevent the judge from issuing the removal order.

The opinion noted that his drug conviction and removal order made him inadmissible, so he needed a waiver of inadmissibility to remain in the country and benefit from the visa if he ever got it. Panton attempted to increase his chances by seeking a waiver from DHS and the U.S. Department of Justice.

The panel said Panton needed proof that he met the statutory requirements for the visa and officials in New York for confirmation. But they took around three years to respond.

"Finally, on December 11, 2023, the New York Police Department certified that Panton had been the target of an attempted murder, had assisted with the investigation of that crime, and had positive equities," it said.

But it noted that the response came too late to be presented to the immigration judge, so Panton asked the BIA to reopen his case and remand with instructions to take the new information into account. But the board denied it, and Panton sought judicial review of the decision.

"The board might have denied that request on the ground that New York's certification is not as vital as Panton depicts, or perhaps that Panton is not entitled to a favorable exercise of discretion," the opinion said. "What the board said instead is hard to fathom — and, to the extent we can fathom it, impossible to accept."

The panel noted that the board said that because Panton sought relief more than 90 days after its decision, only reopening the matter sua sponte, or of their own accord, was an option.

"The board ignored the possibility of equitable tolling, even though Panton had requested that relief explicitly," the panel said. "Its statement that Panton had not even 'claimed' an exception to the 90-day limit is false."

It added that the board's claim that only U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services can issue a U visa is true, but noted that it had nothing to do with Panton's request. It noted that his request was for a judge to waive his inadmissibility and not to issue a U visa, adding that the board "seemingly equated" them.

The panel said that Panton had asked for an additional remedy that the board did not mention as a possibility.

"The agency's lawyer in this court has confessed error on the board's decision, recognizing that it was mistaken in part (conflating a visa with a waiver of inadmissibility) and nonresponsive in full," the panel said. "Still, counsel contends that the board's errors were harmless."

The opinion said that the brief recognized that the court has found that immigration judges and other officials in the DOJ can issue waivers of inadmissibility. It also noted that the brief argued that Panton can't obtain from the DOJ the kind of waiver that was addressed in other cases.

The panel said the agency's brief did not try to reconcile the Justice Department's position in Cirrus Rojas v. Olson — that inadmissible noncitizens in the country must be deemed to be seeking admission — with its position here that inadmissible noncitizens in the country cannot be deemed to be seeking admission.

The panel noted that the Supreme Court will decide in Roney v. Barbosa da Cunha whether this court's holding in Cirrus Rojas is correct. But it added that since Panton isn't in the country right now, the resolution of the tension in the agency's positions may not matter to him.

"The Board of Immigration Appeals must address and resolve the arguments that Panton advances and any response that the agency's lawyer presents," the opinion said.

But the panel said the board does not need to reconsider the possibility of reopening sua sponte as it has already declined to follow it and the decision is not judicially reviewable.

Panton's counsel, Graham White of Mayer Brown, called the decision "an important check on the government's rush to deport immigrants before their cases have been fully heard" and said it was a critical step in bringing him back "where he belongs."

"The Seventh Circuit recognized that the Board of Immigration Appeals cannot deny relief without engaging with the arguments in front of it," White added. "Due process requires the government to listen before it acts, particularly when it seeks to separate a person from his family and community."

Counsel for the government did not respond to a request for comment Tuesday.

U.S. Circuit Judges Frank H. Easterbrook, Michael Y. Scudder, and John Z. Lee sat on the panel for the Seventh Circuit.

Panton is represented by Charles Roth of The National Immigrant Justice Center and Graham White of Mayer Brown.

The government is represented by Gregory Michael Kelch of the U.S. Department of Justice.

The case is Robert Savio Panton v. Todd W. Blanche, case number 25-2528, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

--Editing by Jay Jackson Jr.

For a reprint of this article, please contact reprints@law360.com.