Page:Reyes Mata v. Lynch.pdf/5

Rh

reopen cases. See ibid. The Court of Appeals thus dismissed Mata's appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

Every other Circuit that reviews removal orders has affirmed its jurisdiction to decide an appeal, like Mata's, that seeks equitable tolling of the statutory time limit to file a motion to reopen a removal proceeding. We granted certiorari to resolve this conflict. 574 U. S. 1118 (2015). And because the Federal Government agrees with Mata that the Fifth Circuit had jurisdiction over his appeal, we appointed an amicus curiae to defend the judgment below. We now reverse.

As we held in Kucana v. Holder, circuit courts have jurisdiction when an alien appeals from the Board's denial of a motion to reopen a removal proceeding. See 558 U. S., at 242, 253. The INA, in combination with a statute cross-referenced there, gives the courts of appeals jurisdiction to review “final order[s] of removal.” 8 U. S. C. § 1252(a)(1); 28 U. S. C. § 2342. That jurisdiction, as the INA expressly contemplates, encompasses review of decisions refusing to reopen or reconsider such orders. See 8 U. S. C. § 1252(b)(6) (“[A]ny review sought of a motion to reopen or reconsider [a