Martin Xochitecatl-Cielo v. PAMELA J. BONDI, Attorney General of the United States

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Argued September 30, 2025
Decided October 10, 2025
Before
MICHAEL Y. SCUDDER, Circuit Judge
AMY J. ST. EVE, Circuit Judge
NANCY L. MALDONADO, Circuit Judge
No. 24-3055
MARTIN XOCHITECATL-CIELO,
Petitioner,
v.
PAMELA J. BONDI, Attorney General
of the United States,
Respondent.
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals.
No. A205-278-208
O R D E R
Martin Xochitecatl-Cielo, a Mexican citizen, petitions for review of the denial of
his application for cancellation of removal for certain non-permanent residents.
See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1). His petition, however, is untimely as to the Board of
Immigration Appeals’ initial order denying relief, and his brief does not meaningfully
address the denial of his subsequent motion to reconsider. Because Xochitecatl-Cielo
has waived the only argument properly before us, we deny his petition.
Xochitecatl-Cielo entered the United States without inspection in 1999. In 2012,
the Department of Homeland Security commenced removal proceedings against him
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance with F ED. R. APP . P. 32.1

-- 1 of 4 --

No. 24-3055 Page 2
for being a noncitizen present in the United States without having been admitted or
paroled. See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i). Xochitecatl-Cielo conceded his removability but
applied for cancellation of removal, claiming that his removal would cause exceptional
and extremely unusual hardship to his United States citizen daughter. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1229b(b)(1)(D).
The immigration judge denied Xochitecatl-Cielo’s request for cancellation of
removal and ordered him removed to Mexico. Xochitecatl-Cielo appealed. On July 16,
2024, the Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed the IJ’s decision. The Board agreed
with the IJ that Xochitecatl-Cielo did not establish that his daughter would suffer
hardship beyond what ordinarily occurs when a parent is removed from the country.
Xochitecatl-Cielo did not petition for review.
Instead, Xochitecatl-Cielo filed a motion with the Board to reconsider its
decision, which the Board denied on October 23, 2024. The Board explained that his
motion did not identify any errors in the IJ’s decision or meaningfully contest the
Board’s conclusion that the IJ’s decision was correct.
Xochitecatl-Cielo then petitioned for review on November 12, 2024—within
30 days of the Board’s order denying reconsideration but almost four months after the
Board’s initial order dismissing his appeal. In his brief, Xochitecatl-Cielo argues only
the merits of his application: that his daughter will suffer exceptional and extremely
unusual hardship if he is removed. He does not address the denial of his motion.
Xochitecatl-Cielo did not timely petition for review of the Board’s July 2024 order
affirming the IJ’s denial of his application; instead, he filed a motion to reconsider. But a
motion to reconsider does not extend the deadline to seek judicial review, nor does a
petition for review from its denial encompass review of the underlying order. Stone v.
INS, 514 U.S. 386, 394, 405 (1995); Shaohua He v. Holder, 781 F.3d 880, 882 (7th Cir. 2015)
(citing 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1)). The Supreme Court’s recent decision in Riley v. Bondi,
145 S. Ct. 2190 (2025), did not change the filing deadline. Riley establishes only that the
deadline is a claim-processing rule, rather than a jurisdictional requirement. Id. at 2201–
02. Because the government raised the untimeliness of Xochitecatl-Cielo’s November
petition, § 1252(b)(1) precludes our review of the Board’s July 2024 order. See Hamer v.
Neighborhood Housing Servs. of Chi., 583 U.S. 17, 20 (2017) (courts must apply claim-
processing rules when properly invoked).
Xochitecatl-Cielo argues that we should review the Board’s July 2024 order
because “any review sought of a motion to reopen or reconsider the order shall be

-- 2 of 4 --

No. 24-3055 Page 3
consolidated with the review of the order.” § 1252(b)(6). But this provision directs
consolidation only as to orders that are properly before us. Xochitecatl-Cielo did not
timely appeal the Board’s July 2024 order, and therefore it cannot be consolidated with
our review of the Board’s denial of his motion to reconsider. See Stone, 514 U.S.
at 394; Shaohua He, 781 F.3d at 882.
That leaves only the October 2024 denial of the motion to reconsider, but
Xochitecatl-Cielo has waived any challenge to that order. In his brief, Xochitecatl-Cielo
asserts only that the IJ was wrong in denying his application for cancellation of removal
in the first place. He does not develop an argument that the Board’s denial of his motion
for reconsideration “was made without a rational explanation, inexplicably departed
from established policies, or rested on an impermissible basis,” Aparicio-Brito v. Lynch,
824 F.3d 674, 688 (7th Cir. 2016) (quoting Awad v. Ashcroft, 328 F.3d 336, 341 (7th Cir.
2003)). Where a petition is timely only as to the denial of reconsideration, but only the
underlying merits are briefed, we cannot review either decision. See Asere v. Gonzales,
439 F.3d 378, 381 (7th Cir. 2006).
We conclude with a reminder to counsel for the petitioner. This is the second
case in which she has filed a petition for review from the Board’s denial of a motion for
reconsideration yet seeks review of the underlying order without having timely
petitioned. See Ramirez-Acosta v. Bondi, No. 24-1961, 2025 WL 764612 (7th Cir. Mar. 11,
2025). Our case law is clear and unambiguous that failing to file a petition for review of
the underlying order forecloses any challenge to that order. Shaohua He, 781 F.3d at 882;
Asere, 439 F.3d at 380 (“[T]he case law could not be clearer on this issue; a motion to
reconsider does not toll the initial 30-day filing deadline for seeking judicial review of
the underlying removal order.”). To preserve judicial review of the Board’s underlying
decision affirming the IJ’s denial of Xochitecatl-Cielo’s application for cancellation of
removal, counsel should have filed a petition for review of the Board’s July 2024 order
within the 30-day deadline. Stone, 514 U.S. at 394 (explaining removal orders “are to be
reviewed in a timely fashion after issuance, irrespective of the later filing of a motion to
reopen or reconsider”). This petition could then have been consolidated with the
petition for review from the Board’s denial of the motion to reconsider. See § 1252(b)(6).
Alternatively, counsel could have forgone the motion to reconsider altogether.
See Shaohua He, 781 F.3d at 882 (“Rather than revisit matters that were already covered
(or should have been covered) in a prior appeal to the Board, the better course for a
petitioner is to file a petition for review in this court.”).

-- 3 of 4 --

No. 24-3055 Page 4
We remind counsel of the filing deadline set forth in § 1252(b)(1) in the hope that
she does not take this misguided approach a third time. Cf. id. at 882–83 (directing the
clerk of court to send copy of opinion to counsel’s licensing authority for appropriate
action in response to third untimely petition for review).
For the reasons discussed, we DENY Xochitecatl-Cielo’s petition for review.

-- 4 of 4 --