ICE can't defeat jurisdiction by delaying service of order

Villegas de la Paz v. Holder, http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/10a0226p-06.pdf

The court found that it had jurisdiction over a petition for review from a decision by ICE to reinstate a removal order. The court denied the petition on the merits, finding that ICE established the existence of the prior order and that any regulatory or procedural violations in the underlying order were irrelevant.  The court recognized its authority to review allegations of constitutional or legal error in the underlying order but found that none existed.

Notably, the petition for review was seven months late because ICE delayed in serving the alien or her attorney with the decision.  OIL made the "remarkable" argument that the court lacked jurisdiction over the appeal because it was untimely.  The court was little time in rejecting that argument because it was ICE's own actions that resulted in the late appeal.  The court would not allow that kind of "ball-hiding," which it called "repellent."  Reinstated orders, like other removal orders, are not valid until served.