Petitions for Review in the Federal Courts of Appeals

A petition for review (PFR) is the mechanism for seeking federal-court review of a final removal order issued by the Board of Immigration Appeals or, in limited circumstances, by ICE. The filing window is short and jurisdictional, and appellate practice in immigration matters requires careful preservation of issues, a command of immigration and criminal statutes, and fluency with both agency records and circuit precedent.

What a Petition for Review Does and Why It Matters

• A PFR asks a circuit court to set aside an adverse agency decision and to remand or vacate the removal order. Filing a PFR does not automatically stop removal; a separate stay motion must be filed with the court if the client remains in the United States and needs to avoid immediate removal.

• The PFR is governed by the Immigration and Nationality Act, the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, and the local rules of each circuit; courts often treat the 30-day statute of limitations as jurisdictional, so late filings are fatal.

• Because many immigration matters turn on mixed questions of law and fact, appellate briefing must be concise about the standard of review and the record evidence that supports reversible error.

Key Deadlines and Practical Filing Steps

• Timeliness: The 30-day deadline to file a PFR after a final BIA decision is jurisdictional; missing it typically forecloses federal review.

• Stay practice: If removal is imminent, file an emergency stay motion with the court contemporaneously with, or immediately after, filing the PFR; the stay is a separate request from the merits petition.

• Preservation: Problems not raised before the BIA are sometimes forfeited; appellate counsel must confirm the administrative record and preserve issues through motions to reopen or reconsider when appropriate.

• Form and service: Follow Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and the circuit’s local rules for form, signature, service, and proof of filing; many circuits provide practice guides for PFRs with court-specific filing instructions and sample petitions.

How Criminal Law Frequently Intersects with PFRs

Criminal convictions are a leading reason noncitizens become removable, and criminal-law doctrines often determine whether a conviction qualifies as an aggravated felony or a crime involving moral turpitude under the INA. Appellate work routinely requires:

• Applying the categorical and modified categorical approaches to compare statutory elements with the record of conviction.

• Arguing statutory interpretation of aggravated-felony provisions and whether state convictions necessarily match federal definitions.

• Challenging agency interpretations of the immigration consequences of criminal convictions, and pressing pure questions of law subject to de novo review when appropriate.

These overlap points create appellate issues that are legal in character but factually grounded in the conviction record and charging documents.

Example Case Pattern: Aggravated Felony Removal Based on a State Drug Conviction

Facts (example pattern): A lawful permanent resident is ordered removed after the BIA concludes a state drug-possession conviction is an aggravated felony under the INA. Trial counsel at removal relied on a plea transcript only; the IJ and BIA denied relief, finding the state statute’s elements necessarily match the generic federal offense.

Why this is an appellate problem: Whether a state conviction qualifies as an aggravated felony often hinges on the categorical approach: courts compare the elements of the state statute to the elements of the generic federal offense. Where the state statute is broader, the conviction may not qualify; where the statute is divisible, courts may resort to certain approved documents to determine the actual offense of conviction. Appellate counsel must show error in the agency’s legal analysis, demonstrate that the record fails to establish the categorical match, or argue that the agency’s interpretation of the aggravated-felony statute conflicts with circuit precedent.

Strategic appellate moves:

• Challenge the agency’s legal conclusions about the categorical analysis and push for de novo review on legal questions.

• If the state statute is divisible, use the record of conviction (plea colloquy, judgment) to show the offense does not meet the federal generic definition or that the agency relied on improper documents.

• Raise constitutional or due-process errors when the agency relied on evidence outside the record without affording the petitioner an opportunity to respond.

• Seek a stay of removal and emergency relief when removal is imminent; explain the merits succinctly in the stay filing because courts balance the likelihood of success with irreparable harm and public interest.

This pattern illustrates how criminal-law technicalities and document-based analysis become central to appellate success in immigration PFRs.

Closing Point

Petitions for review are high-stakes, time-sensitive litigation that blends immigration law, criminal-law doctrine, and federal appellate procedure. We at Wisecup Legal can help you succeed on these petitions. Schedule a consultation today!