Asucena Velazquez-Olais v. TODD BLANCHE , Acting Attorney General of the United States

In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
____________________
No. 25-1244
A SUCENA V ELAZQUEZ-OLAIS ,
Petitioner,
v.
T ODD BLANCHE , Acting Attorney General of the United States,
Respondent.
____________________
Petition for Review of an Administrative Decision
Declining to Reopen a Removal Order
____________________
A RGUED FEBRUARY 19, 2026 — D ECIDED A PRIL 6, 2026
____________________
Before EASTERBROOK , P RYOR , and KOLAR , Circuit Judges.
EASTERBROOK , Circuit Judge. Asucena Velazquez-Olais en-
tered the United States illegally (avoiding inspection at the
border) some time before 2018. When a state conviction for
possessing cocaine with intent to deliver, see 720 ILCS
570/401(d), brought her to the attention of federal officials, the
Department of Homeland Security entered a “Final Adminis-
trative Removal Order” (FARO) against her. See 8 U.S.C.
§1228(b). Such an order is judicially reviewable, see Riley v.
Bondi, 606 U.S. 259 (2025), but Velazquez-Olais did not file a

-- 1 of 3 --

2 No. 25-1244
petition for review. She was removed to Mexico on August 10,
2018.
She is back in the United States. Again we do not know
when and how she entered, but she does not contend that the
entry was authorized or lawful. She asked a state court to
amend her conviction from “possession with intent to de-
liver” to simple possession, contending that the quantity
seized on her arrest (28.1 grams) is consistent with personal
use. The state judiciary obliged.
Counsel for Velazquez-Olais then asked an immigration
official in Chicago to reopen and cancel the removal order. Af-
ter an exchange of emails, a Deportation Officer in the Chi-
cago Field Office of the Department of Homeland Security
stated that the “Chicago Office” would not revisit the 2018 or-
der. Velazquez-Olais now invokes 8 U.S.C. §1252(a), asking
the court of appeals to review that email message.
It is one thing to say, as the Justices did in Riley, that a final
order of removal is reviewable even when entered through an
expedited process. It is quite another to suppose that an email
declining to do anything about an order executed years ago is
the same as an order of removal. Riley carefully identified the
characteristics that make something an order of removal. 606
U.S. at 267. The email that Velazquez-Olais received possesses
none of these. With some exceptions, §1252(a)(1) authorizes a
court of appeals to review a “final order of removal”, so we
could have reviewed the 2018 order. But that order has been
carried out. All questions about timing to one side
(§1252(b)(1) allows only 30 days to seek judicial review), it is
not possible to see an email from a field office as the agency’s
final decision, let alone as a “final order of removal.”
There is just nothing to review. The 2018 order has been
executed. Once an order has been executed, it cannot be re-

-- 2 of 3 --

No. 25-1244 3
executed. Morales-Izquierdo v. Gonzales, 486 F.3d 484, 487 (9th
Cir. 2007). An order of removal may be reinstated under 8
U.S.C. §1231(a)(5), and the act of reinstatement is reviewable
under some circumstances. See Villa v. Barr, 924 F.3d 370, 372–
73 (7th Cir. 2019). But the 2018 order has not been reinstated.
Instead the Department of Homeland Security restarted the
removal process last July by issuing a Notice to Appear. A
new decisional process is under way. Velazquez-Olais can ar-
gue there that a conviction for simple possession of cocaine
does not foreclose avenues of discretionary relief.
If the ongoing process leads to a new order of removal,
Velazquez-Olais will be free to seek judicial review. If she is
criminally prosecuted for her reentry, that too would facilitate
review, subject to the limitations in 8 U.S.C. §1326(d). See
United States v. Palomar-Santiago, 593 U.S. 321 (2021); United
States v. Manriquez-Alvarado, 953 F.3d 511 (7th Cir. 2020). But
she is not now subject to an order of removal, so we lack ju-
risdiction under §1252(a).
The petition for review is dismissed.

-- 3 of 3 --